Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, CockSucker, MotherFucker, and Tits
Your list is incomplete: you forgot Fart, Turd, and Twat. Actually, apparently the FCC has changed it's philosophy on verbal prohibition slightly since George Carlin's routine.
Armentano might be an economics professor, but his ideas are by no means accepted as canon by the larger economic community. This includes his idea that regulating monopolies is immoral (which, I might point out, is not an economic stance). His argument rests mainly on one assumption, that corporate regulation works against competition, and competition produces the best goods/services. If this argument were applied to other arenas, it might be true, but it is a fallacy when applied to monopolies. A monopoly is by definition a market where the commodity is controlled by a single entity. In other words, it is the absence of competition. When a corporation constructs a monopoly, they are no longer bound by the rules of the free market, and have much less obligation to maximally satisfy the consumer. Another company will not break that monopoly by simply producing superior products, and so the consumer, lacking the ability to choose, is ultimately who suffers in the end. A government agency stepping in to break that monopoly can stir up the market and provide more choices to the consumer. And that is NOT immoral.
I'd think that after his terrible treatment last time he'd know better than to even consider working with them.
Funny you mention that. I read an interview with Joss following the release of Serenity, and they were discussing how much fan support there was after the cancellation of Firefly and how it facilitated the production of Serenity. He said something to the effect of Fox was willing to consider discussions about bringing back the series, but he had made a personal vow to never, ever, again work with Fox. So now I read about Dollhouse and ask myself, "WTF?".
Wow. If this guy doesn't get warrants out for his arrest because of this story I'll be really surprised.
Normally yes, but TFA points out that these guys waited until the statutes of limitation had run out before publishing the story so that they wouldn't get into trouble. I'm no lawyer so I don't know the details of that loophole, but this guy thoroughly did his homework on every other aspect of the trip, so I'd assume he did his homework about the legal ramifications as well.
I bet that in CERN maybe a physicist in a thousand, with an IQ over 200, sees the big picture and understands what the wotk is really about.
That's highly unlikely. If you are a prof. of physics, as you claim, then you know very well what it takes to obtain a Ph.D., and one of the most basic requirements is the ability to demonstrate a very complete understanding of the relevant field and the "big picture" as you put it. And that's just for the degree; there's no WAY someone could get a faculty appointment without that level of understanding.
It's very true that accelerator-based particle physics is coming to a dead end. But I think the suggestion that particle physicists get to play with huge budgets simply because of better PR is unfounded. In general, condensed matter research simply doesn't require huge budgets. Cutting-edge CM research can still be done in a one-room laboratory these days, with a crew of less than ten. Believe you me, the huge budgets of CERN and Fermilab are hinderances more than blessings, because it takes much more time and people to make a breakthrough. And don't fall into the trap of thinking that pure research is worthless because it is not so "tractable and practical". For example, let's not forget that the development of quantum mechanics was completely untractable and unpractical, but without it, all the transistors you rely on to read this posting wouldn't exist...
Oh, and please leave string theory out of this. Most people in our field don't even consider that real science.
They predict a particle that hasn't actually been observed... it has to have spin 2, and mass 0.
When physicists talk about "predictions", we are referring to those that can be tested; all others are irrelevant. This spin 2 particle that string theory "predicts" is sort of a red herring; it doesn't predict anything about how the particle should interact, so even if we DID observe a spin 2, mass 0 particle, one could not say it validates anything about string theory.
What bothers me the most about this posting (the main post, not the parent) is that it tries to put string theory and inflation on equal footing. This is extremely misleading. The predictions of inflation are very specific and have been well-supported by precision measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). String theory, on the other hand, makes no predictions, and has no supporting evidence. The GP's comparison of string theory to a religion is right to the point: as Nobel-laureate Sheldon Glashow said about string theory, "If there is a model that cannot be tested, is that science? Or is it philosophy?"
Neutrinos do not have mass.... therefore it should not be possible for them to change their state
Actually, that's the whole thing... these experiments which show that neutrino flavor oscillates are evidence that neutrinos DO have mass (and also, don't travel at the speed of light).
But the fact that a particle travels at the speed of light doesn't necessarily mean it can't change state. It's true, a photon would not be able to measure the passage of time, but stationary observers like us can measure the passage of time as a photon travels at a finite velocity through the lab. E.g., photons CAN change state (and they are massless).
The reason that neutrino oscillations prove that neutrinos have mass is a little more subtle. We already knew there are three "flavor" neutrino states (electron, muon, tau), which we thought were fixed. But if a neutrino oscillates between these, that requires that a neutrino is actually a linear combination of these three states, and hence there must exist a separate basis of neutrino states which ARE fixed. The only way to do that is if these separate three states are mass states, which must be fixed because of conservation of energy. So, a neutrino is created in the sun with a definite mass state and possibly definite flavor state, but as it travels the mass cannot change, and so the flavor must oscillate. A similar relation between mass and flavor exists for the quarks.
I'm not so sure I agree. Growing up in the U.S., it certainly seems ridiculous to us because we are allowed to wait a long time before picking a path of study/career. But we have to consider that our public education system is embarrassingly poor compared to other developed countries (in fact, the only educational arena in which we excel is grad/professional level). In western Europe, for example, it is the norm for high school students to pick a course of study; it's not quite as compartmentalized as having nine different majors (there are typically around 3 tracks), but the structure is the same. Even to me, this type of system superficially seems like a bad idea, but the fact of the matter is that it produces results. I think the quality of our school systems is so poor that we can't afford to dismiss propositions like this out of hand.
No, the UCS only speaks up whenever politicians try to interfere with science. They spoke up plenty under Clinton. The fact that they speak up more under Bush is a symptom of Bush's actions, not of the UCS political bent. Besides, they aren't the only ones who have complained about the current administration's attempts to censor science.
So what you're saying is the more they tighten their grip, the more stars will slip through their fingers? =D
So maybe the industry's next move will be to build a death star and blast people who distribute music for free. Cool, then this is where all the skill I have at bullzeyeing womprats in my T-16 comes to good use, finally.
First, I should say that if I had discarded the viewpoints of a group because of their personal, individual beliefs which they did not try to force on others, in such a manner as I did here, I agree that might be called 'intellectual carelessness', as you so diplomatically put it. But I am referring specifically to the people who designed, paid for, built and promoted this perversion of thought they call a museum. Pushing an agenda of I.D. is intellectually inexcusable. I.D. is supported by NO evidence which can be verified in a scientific, and more importantly, way.
If there were a group which built a 'Flat Earth' museum/amusement park, and additionally tried to push for public schools to teach kids that the flat earth scenario is a viable and alternate theory for the earth's shape, would you object when they are characterized as 'nutjobs'? If there were a group which pushed for Santa Clause as an actual, true alternative to the theory of gift-appearance on Christmas Eve, would you object when someone calls them 'nutjobs'? How about the Tooth Fairy as an alternative theory to lost-tooth-under-the pillow disappearance? Intelligent Design is equally ridiculous to any of these. What makes it worse is that it's a fairy tale which people try to push as reality. But the only reality of I.D is that it sickens the mind into abandonment of rational and critical thought. These people are categorical nutjobs.
We definitely haven't understood the physics behind visible light for 200,000 years. After the prediction of the existence of EM radiation by Maxwell, the first to be studied as such were radio waves. Sure, visible light had been studied, but the physics of it was not understood. So, I stand by my statement: the part of the EM spectrum where we understood the physics the best (and for the longest amount of time) is for radio frequencies.
I'm not saying that WiFi is dangerous, but as a precedent people have often generally underestimated some dangers with emerging technologies and we should never discount such a thing could happen.
Yes, but radio waves are not an emerging technology. After about 120 years of study, I think we can safely say that radio waves are the best-understood part of the EM spectrum, in terms of the physics of their interactions.
Slashdot Mirror
...said Meredith Fuchs, a lawyer for...
bummer of a last name
Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, CockSucker, MotherFucker, and Tits
Your list is incomplete: you forgot Fart, Turd, and Twat. Actually, apparently the FCC has changed it's philosophy on verbal prohibition slightly since George Carlin's routine.
Armentano might be an economics professor, but his ideas are by no means accepted as canon by the larger economic community. This includes his idea that regulating monopolies is immoral (which, I might point out, is not an economic stance). His argument rests mainly on one assumption, that corporate regulation works against competition, and competition produces the best goods/services. If this argument were applied to other arenas, it might be true, but it is a fallacy when applied to monopolies. A monopoly is by definition a market where the commodity is controlled by a single entity. In other words, it is the absence of competition. When a corporation constructs a monopoly, they are no longer bound by the rules of the free market, and have much less obligation to maximally satisfy the consumer. Another company will not break that monopoly by simply producing superior products, and so the consumer, lacking the ability to choose, is ultimately who suffers in the end. A government agency stepping in to break that monopoly can stir up the market and provide more choices to the consumer. And that is NOT immoral.
I'd think that after his terrible treatment last time he'd know better than to even consider working with them.
Funny you mention that. I read an interview with Joss following the release of Serenity, and they were discussing how much fan support there was after the cancellation of Firefly and how it facilitated the production of Serenity. He said something to the effect of Fox was willing to consider discussions about bringing back the series, but he had made a personal vow to never, ever, again work with Fox. So now I read about Dollhouse and ask myself, "WTF?".
...the community from which Ubuntu is derived.
And by "community" you mean "debian".
They could simply take a lesson from the amusement park industry: "you must be THIS tall to ride..."
well you know what they say about kernels with big feet....
Wow. If this guy doesn't get warrants out for his arrest because of this story I'll be really surprised.
Normally yes, but TFA points out that these guys waited until the statutes of limitation had run out before publishing the story so that they wouldn't get into trouble. I'm no lawyer so I don't know the details of that loophole, but this guy thoroughly did his homework on every other aspect of the trip, so I'd assume he did his homework about the legal ramifications as well.
And who the hell uses rs-232 anymore??
I bet that in CERN maybe a physicist in a thousand, with an IQ over 200, sees the big picture and understands what the wotk is really about.
That's highly unlikely. If you are a prof. of physics, as you claim, then you know very well what it takes to obtain a Ph.D., and one of the most basic requirements is the ability to demonstrate a very complete understanding of the relevant field and the "big picture" as you put it. And that's just for the degree; there's no WAY someone could get a faculty appointment without that level of understanding.
It's very true that accelerator-based particle physics is coming to a dead end. But I think the suggestion that particle physicists get to play with huge budgets simply because of better PR is unfounded. In general, condensed matter research simply doesn't require huge budgets. Cutting-edge CM research can still be done in a one-room laboratory these days, with a crew of less than ten. Believe you me, the huge budgets of CERN and Fermilab are hinderances more than blessings, because it takes much more time and people to make a breakthrough. And don't fall into the trap of thinking that pure research is worthless because it is not so "tractable and practical". For example, let's not forget that the development of quantum mechanics was completely untractable and unpractical, but without it, all the transistors you rely on to read this posting wouldn't exist...
Oh, and please leave string theory out of this. Most people in our field don't even consider that real science.
Oh my god, you're right!
They predict a particle that hasn't actually been observed... it has to have spin 2, and mass 0.
When physicists talk about "predictions", we are referring to those that can be tested; all others are irrelevant. This spin 2 particle that string theory "predicts" is sort of a red herring; it doesn't predict anything about how the particle should interact, so even if we DID observe a spin 2, mass 0 particle, one could not say it validates anything about string theory.
What bothers me the most about this posting (the main post, not the parent) is that it tries to put string theory and inflation on equal footing. This is extremely misleading. The predictions of inflation are very specific and have been well-supported by precision measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). String theory, on the other hand, makes no predictions, and has no supporting evidence. The GP's comparison of string theory to a religion is right to the point: as Nobel-laureate Sheldon Glashow said about string theory, "If there is a model that cannot be tested, is that science? Or is it philosophy?"
(yes)
Neutrinos do not have mass.... therefore it should not be possible for them to change their state
Actually, that's the whole thing... these experiments which show that neutrino flavor oscillates are evidence that neutrinos DO have mass (and also, don't travel at the speed of light).
But the fact that a particle travels at the speed of light doesn't necessarily mean it can't change state. It's true, a photon would not be able to measure the passage of time, but stationary observers like us can measure the passage of time as a photon travels at a finite velocity through the lab. E.g., photons CAN change state (and they are massless).
The reason that neutrino oscillations prove that neutrinos have mass is a little more subtle. We already knew there are three "flavor" neutrino states (electron, muon, tau), which we thought were fixed. But if a neutrino oscillates between these, that requires that a neutrino is actually a linear combination of these three states, and hence there must exist a separate basis of neutrino states which ARE fixed. The only way to do that is if these separate three states are mass states, which must be fixed because of conservation of energy. So, a neutrino is created in the sun with a definite mass state and possibly definite flavor state, but as it travels the mass cannot change, and so the flavor must oscillate. A similar relation between mass and flavor exists for the quarks.
I'm not so sure I agree. Growing up in the U.S., it certainly seems ridiculous to us because we are allowed to wait a long time before picking a path of study/career. But we have to consider that our public education system is embarrassingly poor compared to other developed countries (in fact, the only educational arena in which we excel is grad/professional level). In western Europe, for example, it is the norm for high school students to pick a course of study; it's not quite as compartmentalized as having nine different majors (there are typically around 3 tracks), but the structure is the same. Even to me, this type of system superficially seems like a bad idea, but the fact of the matter is that it produces results. I think the quality of our school systems is so poor that we can't afford to dismiss propositions like this out of hand.
The UCS is a notorious left wing group
No, the UCS only speaks up whenever politicians try to interfere with science. They spoke up plenty under Clinton. The fact that they speak up more under Bush is a symptom of Bush's actions, not of the UCS political bent. Besides, they aren't the only ones who have complained about the current administration's attempts to censor science.
ok ok, that's all very nice, but how do I attach the tubes?
So what you're saying is the more they tighten their grip, the more stars will slip through their fingers? =D
So maybe the industry's next move will be to build a death star and blast people who distribute music for free. Cool, then this is where all the skill I have at bullzeyeing womprats in my T-16 comes to good use, finally.
Anyone who says Star Wars isn't scientific is a stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder.
Not that I expect a rational reply...
reply = 2^0.5
Damn, you were right!
First, I should say that if I had discarded the viewpoints of a group because of their personal, individual beliefs which they did not try to force on others, in such a manner as I did here, I agree that might be called 'intellectual carelessness', as you so diplomatically put it. But I am referring specifically to the people who designed, paid for, built and promoted this perversion of thought they call a museum. Pushing an agenda of I.D. is intellectually inexcusable. I.D. is supported by NO evidence which can be verified in a scientific, and more importantly, way.
If there were a group which built a 'Flat Earth' museum/amusement park, and additionally tried to push for public schools to teach kids that the flat earth scenario is a viable and alternate theory for the earth's shape, would you object when they are characterized as 'nutjobs'? If there were a group which pushed for Santa Clause as an actual, true alternative to the theory of gift-appearance on Christmas Eve, would you object when someone calls them 'nutjobs'? How about the Tooth Fairy as an alternative theory to lost-tooth-under-the pillow disappearance? Intelligent Design is equally ridiculous to any of these. What makes it worse is that it's a fairy tale which people try to push as reality. But the only reality of I.D is that it sickens the mind into abandonment of rational and critical thought. These people are categorical nutjobs.
How, exactly, did these nutjobs scrape together the heaps of money that must have been required to build this carnival side-show?
Or... maybe I underestimate the spending power of the evangelicals.
We definitely haven't understood the physics behind visible light for 200,000 years. After the prediction of the existence of EM radiation by Maxwell, the first to be studied as such were radio waves. Sure, visible light had been studied, but the physics of it was not understood. So, I stand by my statement: the part of the EM spectrum where we understood the physics the best (and for the longest amount of time) is for radio frequencies.
wow, i almost spit coffee all over my laptop when i read that. careful, yo.
I'm not saying that WiFi is dangerous, but as a precedent people have often generally underestimated some dangers with emerging technologies and we should never discount such a thing could happen.
Yes, but radio waves are not an emerging technology. After about 120 years of study, I think we can safely say that radio waves are the best-understood part of the EM spectrum, in terms of the physics of their interactions.