Of course, but these aren't crackpots screaming that modern physics is wrong. They're getting puzzling results, even after doublechecking, so they're asking others to verify. This is the by-the-book scientific process.
They are not asking others to verify. They claim the discovery:
"The team measured the travel times of neutrino bunches some 15,000 times, and have reached a level of statistical significance that in scientific circles would count as a formal discovery." Now that's the scientific process, and yes, despite all the humbleness of their tone, they are screaming that the modern physics is wrong.
But, if they can send light down the same route and get the same result, then they can show a significant difference between the speed of it and neutrinos.
They can't send the light through the Earth though, it would get absorbed, while neutrinos interact so weakly that they go through it as if there is nothing there.
Doesn't matter if anyone gets prosecuted. Damages are $8 billion and counting, and News Corp is about to lose its credit rating. No court in the world could dish out this sort of damage.
It does matter, because you cannot measure everything in the world in terms of money loss/gain. That's why we have courts, legal system, etc.
I actually meant to write that BPP is almost certainly a subset of NP and is tentatively equal to P. Somehow the "almost certainly" didn't end up getting written. Um, blame my fingers?
Nevermind the fingers,
the important thing is that you
precisely said what you meant.
Not really, it's merely selecting
patterns it is not aware of if
it's patterns are "successful"
or not.
Author ascribes awareness to the selection process.
Grammatical ambiguity related to uses of "it's" some people
may also consider to be funny--change the first "it's" to "its" for comical effects.
If you run a pattern generator
long enough you can get all possible
patterns within a finite possibility space.
Now that's just plain LOL. Even if we assume that
the pattern space is finite, which is not clear at
all, given that we're dealing here with velocities,
possibly even classical chaos, the dimension of the space
must be humongous, thus evolutive algoritms.
say Bernoulli effect is just a manifestation of laws of conservation intertwined with laws of dynamics -- so we can say why we see the Bernoulli effect.
Do you then accept that there is such thing as the Bernoulli effect in some sense?
"Now, here are some results from our phone-in poll: 95% of the people believe Homer Simpson is guilty. Of course, this is just a television poll which is not legally binding, unless proposition 304 passes. And we all pray it will."
-Kent Brockman
No matter what happens on Earth, there is an apropos Simpsons quote about it.
The correct way for a teacher to handle the situation is to say, "You might be right, I'm not sure. Let's move on for now, but you can tell me your argument after class."
Exactly--why apply force when one can force someone to shut up and do something by these kind words.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I mistyped, it's not RAID 0, it's Raid 1 (X-Raid) thank you for attempting to make me look like I knew what I was talking about :)
Too late, he already moved his onto RAID 0.
Facebook NEVER deletes or forgets ANYTHING, even when they claim they do.
It is probably is the safest storage there has ever been.
Plus, you can order a copy of your data when you need it.
Of course, but these aren't crackpots screaming that modern physics is wrong. They're getting puzzling results, even after doublechecking, so they're asking others to verify. This is the by-the-book scientific process.
They are not asking others to verify. They claim the discovery: "The team measured the travel times of neutrino bunches some 15,000 times, and have reached a level of statistical significance that in scientific circles would count as a formal discovery." Now that's the scientific process, and yes, despite all the humbleness of their tone, they are screaming that the modern physics is wrong.
But, if they can send light down the same route and get the same result, then they can show a significant difference between the speed of it and neutrinos.
They can't send the light through the Earth though, it would get absorbed, while neutrinos interact so weakly that they go through it as if there is nothing there.
Maybe there's some game or show that's popular and the teacher can hook into that to make class work more relevant.
Yeah, since teachers are surely out of touch with what's hot and what's not. Like Lady Gaga is totaly relevant, Shakespeare is not.
[...] I thought we had gotten beyond the whole "eye for an eye" thing.
Funny how your post got modded Insightful with all this ""eye for an eye" thing" thing.
Doesn't matter if anyone gets prosecuted. Damages are $8 billion and counting, and News Corp is about to lose its credit rating. No court in the world could dish out this sort of damage.
It does matter, because you cannot measure everything in the world in terms of money loss/gain. That's why we have courts, legal system, etc.
Necrophilia does not mean what you think it means.
A lot of other people think that the BSD license with its even more freedoms is a better license for them.
The creator of Linux thinks the BSD license is more free. [...]
Unless he says that a lot of other people think so.
:-D
I actually meant to write that BPP is almost certainly a subset of NP and is tentatively equal to P. Somehow the "almost certainly" didn't end up getting written. Um, blame my fingers?
Nevermind the fingers, the important thing is that you precisely said what you meant.
This whole NP=P thing is getting more complicated every minute...
But that's what plants crave!
Round in circles here we go...
I don't get why this has been modded "funny".
Let's check out the parent post:
Not really, it's merely selecting patterns it is not aware of if it's patterns are "successful" or not.
Author ascribes awareness to the selection process. Grammatical ambiguity related to uses of "it's" some people may also consider to be funny--change the first "it's" to "its" for comical effects.
If you run a pattern generator long enough you can get all possible patterns within a finite possibility space.
Now that's just plain LOL. Even if we assume that the pattern space is finite, which is not clear at all, given that we're dealing here with velocities, possibly even classical chaos, the dimension of the space must be humongous, thus evolutive algoritms.
No offense taken.
In the book Contact, the embedded circle of 1's in and 11 x 11 grid appeared after a LONG (>10^6) sequence of just 0's... and followed by one too.
I dunno, circle in 11x11 resolution just isn't very precise thing. If it were something like, say, smiley, well that I'd consider much more seriously.
say Bernoulli effect is just a manifestation of laws of conservation intertwined with laws of dynamics -- so we can say why we see the Bernoulli effect.
Do you then accept that there is such thing as the Bernoulli effect in some sense?
Since PI has an infinite number of nontrivial digits, there's no such thing as the last digit of PI.
With tests like this, humility leads nowhere.
You should have told them that you had used a mental eraser.
Step 5 would simply compile to nothing.
That's simply incorrect.
"Now, here are some results from our phone-in poll: 95% of the people believe Homer Simpson is guilty. Of course, this is just a television poll which is not legally binding, unless proposition 304 passes. And we all pray it will."
-Kent Brockman
No matter what happens on Earth, there is an apropos Simpsons quote about it.
And a prayer to God.
The correct way for a teacher to handle the situation is to say, "You might be right, I'm not sure. Let's move on for now, but you can tell me your argument after class."
Exactly--why apply force when one can force someone to shut up and do something by these kind words.
However, as long as we are being pedantic, it is my shame to admit that I have failed more than one of such
Then, oh great SunTzuWarmaster, I have a good news for you: you can't fail this kind of test.