You blame the Democrats for this without recognizing the fact that the state's Constitution required them to fund the ballot initiatives that are bankrupting the state.
As for any other spending increases, you can lay equal blame at the Democrats and Republicans of CA, you ignorant twit
Is this a problem? I don't mind inserting a disc to watch a movie, even if that movie is streamed, so long as a better solution is in the works.
According to the Joystiq interview, it was much faster to develop an application on a blueray disc and use that for the streaming application than to develop an embedded application for the PS3. The people at Netflix are implying that there was never an exclusive deal with the 360; the marketing people at Microsoft took the liberty of using "exclusive" despite the lack of any exclusivity agreement. Can't really fault them for that
Countless "exclusive" 360 games are released on the PC a few months later. It's a marketing gimmick to get consumers to believe that their system is the only one to offer service X or game Y when those same products will be available shortly on another system.
You're receiving a substantial discount for a family plan. It's not a fair comparison. That same plan for a single individual would cost at least twice as much and would carry a much smaller phone subsidy.
Consumption taxes are regressive, since they impact the lowest income brackets the most. When you have no savings to speak of, consumption taxes hurt you the most. Shifting the tax burden to the lowest classes makes no sense, but that is exactly what you're proposing (perhaps without realizing it)
Okay, in that case you'll be pleased to know that there are plans even cheaper than yours in Europe. For the summer, I'm using a pretty nice flip phone that cost me 50 CHF (~ $45) up front and costs me about 10 CHF/month, also with unlimited text. But I also get a lot more talk time than you. Also, keep in mind that Switzerland is one of the most expensive countries in Europe.
The point is that the same American plans can generally be found in Europe for cheaper. There is no reason that those "outrageous plans" (as you put it) need to cost so much.
His comments and criticisms reveal only that he knows very little about particle physics. For instance,
"Obviously, a elementary particle has a predefined shape and size that cannot be adjusted and that leads to an issue with an efficient packing arrangement to create a micro-blackhole"
This makes no sense from any perspective.
His harshest criticism is that we're not certain what the equivalent cosmic ray energy would have to be in order to produce the same center of mass energy as the LHC. He's completely wrong. This is an elementary number that any grad student would be able to calculate given the same conditions.
More fun quotes
"'(d) cosmic rays are incapable of producing micro-blackholes due to the distribution of forces during collision', or '(e) relativistic particles striking non-relativistic particles do not exhibit the same behavior as relativisitic only collisions. "
(d) Wrong, because you can always perform your calculations in the rest frame of either proton and get the same answers. Also, Newtonian physics don't work at these length scales
(e) Wrong again for the same reasons. The difference between fixed target experiments (we've built several) and colliders (LHC) are well understood, and at the energies we're discussing the mechanics are nearly identical. The real difference, that the particles are produced closer to rest in the LHC, is already mentioned in the LHC design documents
As others have said, we already know that earth-destroying events (black holes, whatever else) can't be created at the LHC because we're still here to talk about the possibility. If the LHC could make an object that destroys the world, then that object would have already been produced by atmospheric collisions and we'd be dead right now.
You're sort of incorrect here. Yes, we built the LHC to probe a new energy regime. However, much MUCH higher energy collisions occur in the atmosphere every day. If we could place multimillion dollar particle detectors like ATLAS and CMS in the atmosphere, we would.
So you could say that we know what definitely will not happen; the world will not be destroyed. I have proof: we're here today to discuss the subject. Since the Earth has been around for some billions of years and these types of events are fairly regular, I'd suggest that there is no chance of the LHC destroying the world.
The explosion happened last September, so it can't be a year behind the new schedule; it hasn't even been a year since the explosion! The schedule set after the explosion was to run again the following September, so it's now predicted to be 2 months behind that schedule
And it's really not too bad, since the SSC was far more overbudget than the LHC has ever been and was being footed solely by the US (whereas the LHC is international). And we're not really losing anything from even a one-year delay. Also, consider the fact that experimental particle physics is but a single aspect of physics, one side of a multifaceted subject.
As for cost, the total LHC cost after 10 years of running is expected to be less than $10 billion total, and that includes the full design phase (greater than 10 years). That means the cost/year is less than $500 million, a drop in the bucket for any modern nation and certainly no problem for CERN's 20 member states and six observer states.
This is absurd. We're talking about the cutting edge of physical discovery, and you're complaining about cost? The total cost is a few billion, and it has been spread out over 15 years.
It might make the most startling discoveries in scientific history, but apparently that's not important!
Unfortunately, Fermilab is unable to probe the highest possible mass ranges of the Higgs. Not without running indefinitely, that is.
The LHC is capable of this, probably by the end of next year we'll have either fully excluded or discovered the Higgs. And a bunch of other stuff
The biggest reason to run through winter is so that we can better understand the experiment. More run time = more interesting stuff for physicists to do! The more time we run uninterrupted, the more quickly we'll be able to fine tune the instruments.
Yes, that's standard. Electricity costs are enormous there in the winter, and most personnel want to go on vacation anyway, so they shut down most of the buildings and stop any experiments.
I am a grad student, and every lab I have seen puts an emphases on putting your safety first. I have a difficult time believing that commercial labs are any safer.
No? Then I'm not switching over from LaTeX. It's already easy to use and does what I want it to do. It also has countless 3rd party plugins that add features, and I doubt that the new version of Office has all of these features yet (for instance, QFT contraction notation).
It doesn't work on Linux? I could probably screw around with Wine, but that seems like a waste when I already have LaTeX installed. Linux is necessary for my work.
And it's not free? Well, I see no reason to pay for a product unless it's actually better than what is already available. I'll happily switch over if this is the case, but the bar has been set pretty high.
Doing a quick torrent search reveals that your book is contained only in large batch torrents, so most of the pirates will never end up reading more than the title. In a collection of 1000 miscellaneous scientific textbooks, yours covers a very specific subject that most of the people downloading the torrent probably do not study.
Keeping this in mind, out of every 10,000 pirated copies of your book, how many do you suppose have actually been read? Assuming ~200 books in a torrent and a completely random distribution, that's only 2%, and that's a particularly optimistic estimate considering the specificity of the subject matter and other factors.
If you make 10% of each $50 hardcover sale, that's about $1000 that you're missing out on. That sucks, but it's hardly anything that you should sweat over, nor does it break the bank.
The best thing you can probably do is release a new edition of the book. Your primary loss of revenue is from competition with other authors who have been releasing books for the last 10 years.
I'm glad that this post was modded 5, because the last line is very important. This book is 10 years old, and it's a tech book! It's probably not out of date, but if I'm going to purchase a textbook on this topic then I'm probably going to look for something more recent. Ideas and concepts tend to evolve with time, teaching methodology improves, etc.
My suggestion to you is to release a new, updated edition. Your biggest loss in sales isn't from piracy, it's from competition with your fellow authors!
Doing a quick torrent search reveals that your book is contained only in large batch torrents, so most of the pirates will never end up reading more than the title. In a collection of 1000 miscellaneous scientific textbooks, yours is of a particular subject that most of the people downloading the torrent probably do not study.
Keeping this in mind, out of every 100000 pirated copies of your book, how many do you suppose have actually been read? Less than a percent?
Slashdot Mirror
The majority of people support public health care according to every public poll that doesn't mention the mythical death panels, so you're wrong
You blame the Democrats for this without recognizing the fact that the state's Constitution required them to fund the ballot initiatives that are bankrupting the state.
As for any other spending increases, you can lay equal blame at the Democrats and Republicans of CA, you ignorant twit
Is this a problem? I don't mind inserting a disc to watch a movie, even if that movie is streamed, so long as a better solution is in the works.
According to the Joystiq interview, it was much faster to develop an application on a blueray disc and use that for the streaming application than to develop an embedded application for the PS3. The people at Netflix are implying that there was never an exclusive deal with the 360; the marketing people at Microsoft took the liberty of using "exclusive" despite the lack of any exclusivity agreement. Can't really fault them for that
Countless "exclusive" 360 games are released on the PC a few months later. It's a marketing gimmick to get consumers to believe that their system is the only one to offer service X or game Y when those same products will be available shortly on another system.
Kentucky? Please look at a map sometime
You're receiving a substantial discount for a family plan. It's not a fair comparison. That same plan for a single individual would cost at least twice as much and would carry a much smaller phone subsidy.
This is a complete lie. Drive between two major cities in the southwest US and you will almost always lose coverage
Having just spent a summer in Europe, bread is actually cheaper there
Consumption taxes are regressive, since they impact the lowest income brackets the most. When you have no savings to speak of, consumption taxes hurt you the most. Shifting the tax burden to the lowest classes makes no sense, but that is exactly what you're proposing (perhaps without realizing it)
Okay, in that case you'll be pleased to know that there are plans even cheaper than yours in Europe. For the summer, I'm using a pretty nice flip phone that cost me 50 CHF (~ $45) up front and costs me about 10 CHF/month, also with unlimited text. But I also get a lot more talk time than you. Also, keep in mind that Switzerland is one of the most expensive countries in Europe.
The point is that the same American plans can generally be found in Europe for cheaper. There is no reason that those "outrageous plans" (as you put it) need to cost so much.
His comments and criticisms reveal only that he knows very little about particle physics. For instance,
"Obviously, a elementary particle has a predefined shape and size that cannot be adjusted and that leads to an issue with an efficient packing arrangement to create a micro-blackhole"
This makes no sense from any perspective.
His harshest criticism is that we're not certain what the equivalent cosmic ray energy would have to be in order to produce the same center of mass energy as the LHC. He's completely wrong. This is an elementary number that any grad student would be able to calculate given the same conditions.
More fun quotes
"'(d) cosmic rays are incapable of producing micro-blackholes due to the distribution of forces during collision', or '(e) relativistic particles striking non-relativistic particles do not exhibit the same behavior as relativisitic only collisions. "
(d) Wrong, because you can always perform your calculations in the rest frame of either proton and get the same answers. Also, Newtonian physics don't work at these length scales
(e) Wrong again for the same reasons. The difference between fixed target experiments (we've built several) and colliders (LHC) are well understood, and at the energies we're discussing the mechanics are nearly identical. The real difference, that the particles are produced closer to rest in the LHC, is already mentioned in the LHC design documents
As others have said, we already know that earth-destroying events (black holes, whatever else) can't be created at the LHC because we're still here to talk about the possibility. If the LHC could make an object that destroys the world, then that object would have already been produced by atmospheric collisions and we'd be dead right now.
You're sort of incorrect here. Yes, we built the LHC to probe a new energy regime. However, much MUCH higher energy collisions occur in the atmosphere every day. If we could place multimillion dollar particle detectors like ATLAS and CMS in the atmosphere, we would.
So you could say that we know what definitely will not happen; the world will not be destroyed. I have proof: we're here today to discuss the subject. Since the Earth has been around for some billions of years and these types of events are fairly regular, I'd suggest that there is no chance of the LHC destroying the world.
No, they're not. And your comment is anything but insightful. Do you realize exactly how many people are involved with the LHC project?
The explosion happened last September, so it can't be a year behind the new schedule; it hasn't even been a year since the explosion! The schedule set after the explosion was to run again the following September, so it's now predicted to be 2 months behind that schedule
And it's really not too bad, since the SSC was far more overbudget than the LHC has ever been and was being footed solely by the US (whereas the LHC is international). And we're not really losing anything from even a one-year delay. Also, consider the fact that experimental particle physics is but a single aspect of physics, one side of a multifaceted subject.
As for cost, the total LHC cost after 10 years of running is expected to be less than $10 billion total, and that includes the full design phase (greater than 10 years). That means the cost/year is less than $500 million, a drop in the bucket for any modern nation and certainly no problem for CERN's 20 member states and six observer states.
This is absurd. We're talking about the cutting edge of physical discovery, and you're complaining about cost? The total cost is a few billion, and it has been spread out over 15 years.
It might make the most startling discoveries in scientific history, but apparently that's not important!
Unfortunately, Fermilab is unable to probe the highest possible mass ranges of the Higgs. Not without running indefinitely, that is.
The LHC is capable of this, probably by the end of next year we'll have either fully excluded or discovered the Higgs. And a bunch of other stuff
The biggest reason to run through winter is so that we can better understand the experiment. More run time = more interesting stuff for physicists to do! The more time we run uninterrupted, the more quickly we'll be able to fine tune the instruments.
Yes, that's standard. Electricity costs are enormous there in the winter, and most personnel want to go on vacation anyway, so they shut down most of the buildings and stop any experiments.
This year is an exception
Is it a slow news day or what?
Can somebody mod this down as flamebait? Seriously, lab safety has to come down to a left vs right debate? Sigh...
I am a grad student, and every lab I have seen puts an emphases on putting your safety first. I have a difficult time believing that commercial labs are any safer.
No? Then I'm not switching over from LaTeX. It's already easy to use and does what I want it to do. It also has countless 3rd party plugins that add features, and I doubt that the new version of Office has all of these features yet (for instance, QFT contraction notation).
It doesn't work on Linux? I could probably screw around with Wine, but that seems like a waste when I already have LaTeX installed. Linux is necessary for my work.
And it's not free? Well, I see no reason to pay for a product unless it's actually better than what is already available. I'll happily switch over if this is the case, but the bar has been set pretty high.
As a scientest, I can assure you that science departments use mostly linux. I have a few colleagues who use Mac as well.
I have a feeling that you're not a troll, just very confused
Doing a quick torrent search reveals that your book is contained only in large batch torrents, so most of the pirates will never end up reading more than the title. In a collection of 1000 miscellaneous scientific textbooks, yours covers a very specific subject that most of the people downloading the torrent probably do not study.
Keeping this in mind, out of every 10,000 pirated copies of your book, how many do you suppose have actually been read? Assuming ~200 books in a torrent and a completely random distribution, that's only 2%, and that's a particularly optimistic estimate considering the specificity of the subject matter and other factors.
If you make 10% of each $50 hardcover sale, that's about $1000 that you're missing out on. That sucks, but it's hardly anything that you should sweat over, nor does it break the bank.
The best thing you can probably do is release a new edition of the book. Your primary loss of revenue is from competition with other authors who have been releasing books for the last 10 years.
I'm glad that this post was modded 5, because the last line is very important. This book is 10 years old, and it's a tech book! It's probably not out of date, but if I'm going to purchase a textbook on this topic then I'm probably going to look for something more recent. Ideas and concepts tend to evolve with time, teaching methodology improves, etc.
My suggestion to you is to release a new, updated edition. Your biggest loss in sales isn't from piracy, it's from competition with your fellow authors!
Doing a quick torrent search reveals that your book is contained only in large batch torrents, so most of the pirates will never end up reading more than the title. In a collection of 1000 miscellaneous scientific textbooks, yours is of a particular subject that most of the people downloading the torrent probably do not study.
Keeping this in mind, out of every 100000 pirated copies of your book, how many do you suppose have actually been read? Less than a percent?