> not afraid to fail people; only 4 [of 200 passed]
Not afraid? No crap... Sounds more like they get off on it! That speaks volumes about the professors, but opposite the manner you imply.
Consider this scenario: I am in charge of "quality control" at Company Q and only 2% of a product passes inspection. Consider that other companies make a nearly-identical thing, some better, most worse, yet none of them have a failure rate approaching Company Q's. My managers would certainly first wonder if the problem was with me and not the product itself.
> If there's only one particle, travelling in a circle through time, how does this work?
I don't know that it's a non-stop time circle, as presented by that page. It says nothing about how that cycle starts or stops, could something not jar it out of its time cycle? (Like I know anything about time-traveling electrons... hell, even space-traveling ones are beyond me.)
With diagram (c), wouldn't it also imply that one electron existed at three points in space simultaneously (in a line probably, for a very short duration)?
Very interesting, yet very short, link. It sort-of answered some questions I asked, but not very well.
I'm not sure if you are knowledgeable in the field (I am certainly not) or just like reading stuff on it, but from an observational standpoint, how does (c) look different from (a)? If we assume a constant "velocity" through time, either way the observer would see: absorbtion, wait for it.... then emission.
Can we tell the difference between an electron that has absorbed a photon and one that has not?
Is the difference that in (a) they can tell that the photon/electron are together and that in (c) it appears mysteriously absorb a photon that promptly disappears then is emitted as it suddenly reappears?
Could this not be explained also by a photon moving into another dimension, as predicted by certain string theory models?
Hmmm, maybe positrons and protons are basically the same thing, just moving in different directions in time (which would -- not really -- explain why electrons seem to have so little mass: it's the time "warp")! Sorry, I only had one cup of coffee today.
It may be semantics, but can we really? As I see it, all we can do is push molecules around and coerce them into "changing" each other through chemical reactions. Even then, however, the atoms are still the same (theoretically, I guess); they're just reorganized, which makes them appear different... but are they?
Well, ignoring that that number is extremely close to zero and that DDT is no longer "the most effective anti-mosquito agent known," I'd say it probably won't resume any time soon.
> Hello, I have modded you down for the spam in your sig
You should have added your username in your message somewhere, so that we can all be notified who it was that just publicly announced "I'm a fucking idiot."
YOU don't get it, Grandma WON'T do it. You can't figure that out and you call someone else an idiot? I guess you just proved the recent study results that incompetent people are too stupid to realize they are incompetent.
That people still say it's "proven" to cause all sorts of stuff that isn't proven. It's easier to get cocaine (because it is STILL obtainable as a pharmaceutical substance) to test on than marijuana, combined with "you must end up reaching our conclusion if we allow you to test it," resulting in very few (if any) reliable studies.
> Nobody should have the power to legally distinguish between religious and non-religous activities.
Then "separation of church and state" means jack shit to you, and you might as well elect the Pope president, and mandate that everyone be Baptist. SOMEONE HAS TO HAVE THAT POWER, OR THE CONSTITUTION IS NULL AND VOID! And when you are talking about questions of legality, who does that responsibility fall to? Judges, you jackass.
> is it too much too ask that they at least know what they're getting involved in?
No, but how many U.S. bombs will have been dropped in Andorra during your lifetime? Do the kids of Louisiana need to know that Andorra's biggest moneymaker is SKI RESORTS??? NO THEY DON'T, IT IS A WASTE OF THEIR TIME! Talking about "our kids need to know this and this and this" is fine, but there isn't enough time to teach them all the worthless shit that would HAVE to be included to teach them such abstract things as diversity.
So, is it too much to ask that they spend every second of their lives learning inconsequential shit? Yes, it is! Unfortunately, that's what they do now, for the most part, it's just different worthless shit.
> a dangerous direction where judges are given the power to distinguish between religious and non-religious activity
Since it is stated as a fundamental part of our laws that there MUST be a separation of church and state, judges are THE ONLY ONES qualified to distinguish between the two!!! At least as far as law is concerned. Why is it that separation of power in the branches of the government, and their respective roles, are being rewritten and castrated (except executive) by the president?
The judicial branch is SUPPOSED to call out when a law is unconstitutional, but when they do that, assholes call them "activist." NO, THEY ARE DOING THEIR DAMNED JOB!
Slashdot Mirror
> Just to clarify as we're refering to an Australian article
Just to clarify that you're a fucking idiot, the article very clearly referred to "AMERICAN," which is Washington State.
> a 30 over ticket you got while speeding through Shady Glenn doing 102 in a 35
102 - 35 = 30? You must be a cop yourself!
> can we get protocol droids capable of speaking their language?
All we need is someone who can speak the "Universal Language of Funk." George Clinton should do nicely.
> not afraid to fail people; only 4 [of 200 passed]
Not afraid? No crap... Sounds more like they get off on it! That speaks volumes about the professors, but opposite the manner you imply.
Consider this scenario: I am in charge of "quality control" at Company Q and only 2% of a product passes inspection. Consider that other companies make a nearly-identical thing, some better, most worse, yet none of them have a failure rate approaching Company Q's. My managers would certainly first wonder if the problem was with me and not the product itself.
> If you need diagrams or - like my 1st degree, musical notation - you're a bit SoL.
Hey, I write MY sheet music in MS Paint, so it works perfectly!
> > chances are pretty good you NEVER HAVE TO RIGHT ANYTHING!
> It's "WRITE" not "RIGHT" for future reference.
He realized his mistake, but took his own advice: He doesn't have to "right" anything, including his spelling!
Let the little fuckers work for their toys!
> If there's only one particle, travelling in a circle through time, how does this work?
I don't know that it's a non-stop time circle, as presented by that page. It says nothing about how that cycle starts or stops, could something not jar it out of its time cycle? (Like I know anything about time-traveling electrons... hell, even space-traveling ones are beyond me.)
Oh yeah, I forgot this too:
With diagram (c), wouldn't it also imply that one electron existed at three points in space simultaneously (in a line probably, for a very short duration)?
Very interesting, yet very short, link. It sort-of answered some questions I asked, but not very well.
I'm not sure if you are knowledgeable in the field (I am certainly not) or just like reading stuff on it, but from an observational standpoint, how does (c) look different from (a)? If we assume a constant "velocity" through time, either way the observer would see: absorbtion, wait for it.... then emission.
Can we tell the difference between an electron that has absorbed a photon and one that has not?
Is the difference that in (a) they can tell that the photon/electron are together and that in (c) it appears mysteriously absorb a photon that promptly disappears then is emitted as it suddenly reappears?
Could this not be explained also by a photon moving into another dimension, as predicted by certain string theory models?
Hmmm, maybe positrons and protons are basically the same thing, just moving in different directions in time (which would -- not really -- explain why electrons seem to have so little mass: it's the time "warp")! Sorry, I only had one cup of coffee today.
> we CAN change the reality that we observe.
It may be semantics, but can we really? As I see it, all we can do is push molecules around and coerce them into "changing" each other through chemical reactions. Even then, however, the atoms are still the same (theoretically, I guess); they're just reorganized, which makes them appear different... but are they?
> If we just let the weak die we would not need universal healthcare
Now here is someone who is TRULY at peace with the reality of nature and its environment, and understands it clearly. You are a true environmentalist.
> just ask any dinosaur
Calls to Barney the Dinosaur went ananswered...
> Why the fuck haven't those so-called intelligent scientists invented fusion plants yet?
Why don't YOU go try fusing atoms together and let us know just how fucking simple it is.
> All it takes is a rave and some LDS
Who knew the Mormons were ravers!!! Raving lunatics, sure, but I figured they would think that listening to techno music is a hell-bound sin.
Ass, His. I Once Heard That.... Sacramento, CA: Bullshit, 2005.
You aren't going to convince anyone (with half a brain) that your results are valid, considering your sample size is 2.
> How many people have to die from West Nile
Well, ignoring that that number is extremely close to zero and that DDT is no longer "the most effective anti-mosquito agent known," I'd say it probably won't resume any time soon.
> Hello, I have modded you down for the spam in your sig
You should have added your username in your message somewhere, so that we can all be notified who it was that just publicly announced "I'm a fucking idiot."
YOU don't get it, Grandma WON'T do it. You can't figure that out and you call someone else an idiot? I guess you just proved the recent study results that incompetent people are too stupid to realize they are incompetent.
> and in that case, what is sad?
That people still say it's "proven" to cause all sorts of stuff that isn't proven. It's easier to get cocaine (because it is STILL obtainable as a pharmaceutical substance) to test on than marijuana, combined with "you must end up reaching our conclusion if we allow you to test it," resulting in very few (if any) reliable studies.
> Nobody should have the power to legally distinguish between religious and non-religous activities.
Then "separation of church and state" means jack shit to you, and you might as well elect the Pope president, and mandate that everyone be Baptist. SOMEONE HAS TO HAVE THAT POWER, OR THE CONSTITUTION IS NULL AND VOID! And when you are talking about questions of legality, who does that responsibility fall to? Judges, you jackass.
> is it too much too ask that they at least know what they're getting involved in?
No, but how many U.S. bombs will have been dropped in Andorra during your lifetime? Do the kids of Louisiana need to know that Andorra's biggest moneymaker is SKI RESORTS??? NO THEY DON'T, IT IS A WASTE OF THEIR TIME! Talking about "our kids need to know this and this and this" is fine, but there isn't enough time to teach them all the worthless shit that would HAVE to be included to teach them such abstract things as diversity.
So, is it too much to ask that they spend every second of their lives learning inconsequential shit? Yes, it is! Unfortunately, that's what they do now, for the most part, it's just different worthless shit.
> a dangerous direction where judges are given the power to distinguish between religious and non-religious activity
Since it is stated as a fundamental part of our laws that there MUST be a separation of church and state, judges are THE ONLY ONES qualified to distinguish between the two!!! At least as far as law is concerned. Why is it that separation of power in the branches of the government, and their respective roles, are being rewritten and castrated (except executive) by the president?
The judicial branch is SUPPOSED to call out when a law is unconstitutional, but when they do that, assholes call them "activist." NO, THEY ARE DOING THEIR DAMNED JOB!
No, I think it's the firey that burns... the irony just retains heat well enough to transfer it to your skin.