It would be an extremely interesting result, but it wouldn't be as outrageous and unlikely as a violation of conservation.
For example, reaction against virtual particles or dark matter. Sure, that's very interesting new physics, but it's not so incredibly unlikely as violation of the conservation of momentum.
That's the thing. Nobody involved is making such an extraordinary claim as that. Rather, the extraordinary claim is being ascribed to them and then used to justify rejecting not only their results so far, but even the possibility that they will ever have results. It's well beyond skepticism.
This is genuinely confusing. Who the hell is claiming that this is a violation of the conservation of momentum? I haven't seen any such claims from any of the people actually doing the experiments. There's probably a zillion alternative explanations, all more likely.
Once and for all, this violation of conservation of momentum BS is a strawman.
Not really. More like he has shown some way that claiming the effect to be real is NOT equivalent to claiming that conservation of momentum is violated. Basically that the claim of the EM drive producing thrust is not as outrageous as the detractors claim it is.
Personally, I prefer to divide the claims. The primary claim is that the EM drive produces thrust that is not a result of lorentz force, air currents, or other conventional explaination. Some sort of new physics would be necessary for that to be true, but not necessarily anything crazy like violation of the conservation of momentum.
The most extraordinary claim would be that conservation of momentum is actually being violated. I haven't seen any attempt to perform an experiment that would demonstrate that. It's almost as if that claim has been tacked on to the actual claim in an attempt to discredit the whole thing. I have no idea why anyone would do that.
Most such CoCs do not manage to implement the first phrase, "Be liberal in what you accept". I note that this one has absolutely NO mention of being liberal in what you accept. Nowhere in it is an admonition to first consider that the person didn't mean what you thought they said. Without that part, things tend to go to hell rapidly.
The problem with microaggressions is that they can be so micro that only one person takes any offense or even sees how it could be offensive. Meanwhile, frequently taking offense at one person's microaggression itself becomes a microaggression. Especially where the "aggression" is actually a quirk of the "offender's" native language. Is it a microaggression to tell someone their native language is full of microaggressions?
Now, for the apologies for microaggressions. Lying is bad, so is it acceptable to say "I'm sorry our language offers no gender neutral singular pronouns that aren't insulting when applied to an adult."? Or "I'm sorry you found a way to twist my neutral statement into a mortal insult!"?
I'm saying you would rather walk out in front of a speeding train than believe a leftist telling you the flashing light means a train is coming. You've made up your mind and don't want to be confused with the facts.
Busybox is generally used in rather specialized situations where function triumphs over form. However, even then, it is easy to replace any particular function of busybox with a standalone component without having to deal with a crazy fat API.
If you needed to drive a nail and a lefty suggested a trim hammer, I'm pretty sure you would deliberately sledgehammer your thumb off just so you could claim he was wrong.
Sorry, that tactic was threadbare by the late 20th century. Not buying it.
I'm guessing since TFA wasn't specific, but it sounds like the equipment in the tree goes to a POE injector and a consumer WiFi AP in the home. So if lightning hits the tree, they lose the power brick, cheap consumer WiFi, and the radio in the tree but the rest is protected by the 2.4 GHz air gap.
Don't take a laptop, just an install DVD. When you arrive, pick up your pre-arranged rental laptop and install your image from the DVD. Use that to download the rest from home. Then work normally.
When you're ready to leave, upload everything over the net and use the DVD as a rescue boot so you can wipe the drives. Return the laptop and shred the DVD.
This is true, but this is a highly contrived scenario. Why would a repair mechanism be rate-limited at such low doses?
It is an OBSERVED scenario. Evolution is a funny thing and tends to be "lazy". It tends to also concern itself only with conditions that are encountered in nature at the time it evolves. I can guess that the mechanism requires some stimulus to work at all because it costs energy. I can guess that it has a limited capacity due to practicality and the unlikely usefulness at higher exposure.
This is not the simplest model.
Yes, if we agree to toss reality and observation out the window, we can just put a dot at the origin and call it good. It is the simplest model that matches observation. See this for example.
Consider, there are a number of people who refused to leave their homes in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. LNTY says they should be dead by now. They are not.
I'm not suggesting we go back to radium water for good health, but it does appear that the risk is greatly exaggerated at low dose.
Many organizations only use LNT out of an abundance of caution.
Is there a particular reason we can't have something like that AND comply with the "do one thing and do it well" rule? I'm not familiar enough with the low level stuff.
There is not. In fact, there are several inits that will start services in parallel.
Well, since our judicial system is SUPPOSED to give the benefit of the doubt to defendants, any case touched by either corrupt techs should be presumed to be vacated. If the DA believes there might be a case without the forensic evidence, he may file charges.
This is a huge part of the problem and is very revealing. Prosecutors and judges decide there is no particular hurry to get the many innocent people convicted by the worst kind of false evidence out of jail, then go home to their nicer than average homes and have a better than average dinner with their families while the innocent eat the cheapest crap that can legally be called food while locked away from their friends and family.
Once the wheels of justice grind away, more slowly than usual, they will act as if they are doing the falsely convicted the worlds biggest favor simply by not further wrongly punishing them.
As for compensation, start by looking at how much you have to pay someone to willingly live under poor conditions away from their family for an extended period of time. So you're looking at paying them what you would pay a North Atlantic oil platform worker at a minimum. Then double it because there was no furlough on offer and double it again because they didn't willingly accept the arrangement.
You don't get to assume spherical cows in a vacuum on this one.
One interesting study of radiologists showed they actually fared a bit better than people without that small extra dose of radiation. In other words, that small amount of occupational exposure had a NEGATIVE risk. In other words, LNT was OVER-estimating the risk of their exposure.
Meanwhile, a rate limited repair mechanism would imply a threshold point where the harm goes way up once above it, or if you prefer, it goes down on the low side.
Even the simplest model where there is a minimum stimulation to activate the repair mechanism which has a limited capacity would result in three different regions in a graph of exposure vs. risk. That doesn't sound at all linear to me, how about you?
As for whether LNT over or under estimates the risk, that would depend on what parts of the complex curve the statistical samples came from.
That's like saying you are mad at car makers for not producing 2 wheeled cars that you sit on top of. Of course astronomers want leap seconds in UTC, that's it's definition. There exist plenty of standards that leave the leap seconds out, get your legislators to embrace one of those if that's what you want and quit trying to legislate a hammer into a screwdriver.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be an extremely interesting result, but it wouldn't be as outrageous and unlikely as a violation of conservation.
For example, reaction against virtual particles or dark matter. Sure, that's very interesting new physics, but it's not so incredibly unlikely as violation of the conservation of momentum.
That's the thing. Nobody involved is making such an extraordinary claim as that. Rather, the extraordinary claim is being ascribed to them and then used to justify rejecting not only their results so far, but even the possibility that they will ever have results. It's well beyond skepticism.
This is genuinely confusing. Who the hell is claiming that this is a violation of the conservation of momentum? I haven't seen any such claims from any of the people actually doing the experiments. There's probably a zillion alternative explanations, all more likely.
Once and for all, this violation of conservation of momentum BS is a strawman.
Not really. More like he has shown some way that claiming the effect to be real is NOT equivalent to claiming that conservation of momentum is violated. Basically that the claim of the EM drive producing thrust is not as outrageous as the detractors claim it is.
Look again at who is involved. These people are not basement psychoceramics looking for a wealthy backer.
Important correction, if this device is real and the most outrageous explanation for it is assumed to be true ...
Personally, I prefer to divide the claims. The primary claim is that the EM drive produces thrust that is not a result of lorentz force, air currents, or other conventional explaination. Some sort of new physics would be necessary for that to be true, but not necessarily anything crazy like violation of the conservation of momentum.
The most extraordinary claim would be that conservation of momentum is actually being violated. I haven't seen any attempt to perform an experiment that would demonstrate that. It's almost as if that claim has been tacked on to the actual claim in an attempt to discredit the whole thing. I have no idea why anyone would do that.
Here's a few.
Most such CoCs do not manage to implement the first phrase, "Be liberal in what you accept". I note that this one has absolutely NO mention of being liberal in what you accept. Nowhere in it is an admonition to first consider that the person didn't mean what you thought they said. Without that part, things tend to go to hell rapidly.
The problem with microaggressions is that they can be so micro that only one person takes any offense or even sees how it could be offensive. Meanwhile, frequently taking offense at one person's microaggression itself becomes a microaggression. Especially where the "aggression" is actually a quirk of the "offender's" native language. Is it a microaggression to tell someone their native language is full of microaggressions?
Now, for the apologies for microaggressions. Lying is bad, so is it acceptable to say "I'm sorry our language offers no gender neutral singular pronouns that aren't insulting when applied to an adult."? Or "I'm sorry you found a way to twist my neutral statement into a mortal insult!"?
How about we just apply Postal's Law?
Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send
I'm saying you would rather walk out in front of a speeding train than believe a leftist telling you the flashing light means a train is coming. You've made up your mind and don't want to be confused with the facts.
Busybox is generally used in rather specialized situations where function triumphs over form. However, even then, it is easy to replace any particular function of busybox with a standalone component without having to deal with a crazy fat API.
If you needed to drive a nail and a lefty suggested a trim hammer, I'm pretty sure you would deliberately sledgehammer your thumb off just so you could claim he was wrong.
Sorry, that tactic was threadbare by the late 20th century. Not buying it.
I'm guessing since TFA wasn't specific, but it sounds like the equipment in the tree goes to a POE injector and a consumer WiFi AP in the home. So if lightning hits the tree, they lose the power brick, cheap consumer WiFi, and the radio in the tree but the rest is protected by the 2.4 GHz air gap.
Don't take a laptop, just an install DVD. When you arrive, pick up your pre-arranged rental laptop and install your image from the DVD. Use that to download the rest from home. Then work normally.
When you're ready to leave, upload everything over the net and use the DVD as a rescue boot so you can wipe the drives. Return the laptop and shred the DVD.
This is true, but this is a highly contrived scenario. Why would a repair mechanism be rate-limited at such low doses?
It is an OBSERVED scenario. Evolution is a funny thing and tends to be "lazy". It tends to also concern itself only with conditions that are encountered in nature at the time it evolves. I can guess that the mechanism requires some stimulus to work at all because it costs energy. I can guess that it has a limited capacity due to practicality and the unlikely usefulness at higher exposure.
This is not the simplest model.
Yes, if we agree to toss reality and observation out the window, we can just put a dot at the origin and call it good. It is the simplest model that matches observation. See this for example.
Consider, there are a number of people who refused to leave their homes in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. LNTY says they should be dead by now. They are not.
I'm not suggesting we go back to radium water for good health, but it does appear that the risk is greatly exaggerated at low dose.
Many organizations only use LNT out of an abundance of caution.
Is there a particular reason we can't have something like that AND comply with the "do one thing and do it well" rule? I'm not familiar enough with the low level stuff.
There is not. In fact, there are several inits that will start services in parallel.
And that is why I and a growing number of Americans have become increasingly skeptical of the criminal "justice" system in the U.S.
In an ideal world, the DA if he wants the evidence to hold any water.
Well, since our judicial system is SUPPOSED to give the benefit of the doubt to defendants, any case touched by either corrupt techs should be presumed to be vacated. If the DA believes there might be a case without the forensic evidence, he may file charges.
This is a huge part of the problem and is very revealing. Prosecutors and judges decide there is no particular hurry to get the many innocent people convicted by the worst kind of false evidence out of jail, then go home to their nicer than average homes and have a better than average dinner with their families while the innocent eat the cheapest crap that can legally be called food while locked away from their friends and family.
Once the wheels of justice grind away, more slowly than usual, they will act as if they are doing the falsely convicted the worlds biggest favor simply by not further wrongly punishing them.
As for compensation, start by looking at how much you have to pay someone to willingly live under poor conditions away from their family for an extended period of time. So you're looking at paying them what you would pay a North Atlantic oil platform worker at a minimum. Then double it because there was no furlough on offer and double it again because they didn't willingly accept the arrangement.
You don't get to assume spherical cows in a vacuum on this one.
One interesting study of radiologists showed they actually fared a bit better than people without that small extra dose of radiation. In other words, that small amount of occupational exposure had a NEGATIVE risk. In other words, LNT was OVER-estimating the risk of their exposure.
Meanwhile, a rate limited repair mechanism would imply a threshold point where the harm goes way up once above it, or if you prefer, it goes down on the low side.
Even the simplest model where there is a minimum stimulation to activate the repair mechanism which has a limited capacity would result in three different regions in a graph of exposure vs. risk. That doesn't sound at all linear to me, how about you?
As for whether LNT over or under estimates the risk, that would depend on what parts of the complex curve the statistical samples came from.
Sure, in the given frame of reference, but that doesn't in any way describe the uses we have for timekeeping today.
That's like saying you are mad at car makers for not producing 2 wheeled cars that you sit on top of. Of course astronomers want leap seconds in UTC, that's it's definition. There exist plenty of standards that leave the leap seconds out, get your legislators to embrace one of those if that's what you want and quit trying to legislate a hammer into a screwdriver.
Why are you bitching at the astronomers when the problem is clearly the legislators?
I believe we are using a different sense of linear.