Contradicted yourself in your first two sentences. An observation is binary and has only two states. It happened or it did not happen. A fact is literally something that is indisputable. If you can dispute an observation, you are disputing whether it exists. If the observation occurred and is true, there is no disputing that it exists, therefor is a fact.
I will concede that an observation could be a pseudo-fact in that there was an error with the instrument that measured it. This is why you need to be able to independently repeat the measurement, probably via multiple methods.
The fact of the matter (pun), is saying Dark Matter does not exist, as of right now, is the same as saying the observations do not exist, as Dark Matter is currently just a collection of unexplaninable observations that seem related.
Dark Matter has been proven. It itself is a collection of observations, aka facts. What we have is a collection of symptoms, but we are still searching for the underlying cause. But to even argue that Dark Matter may not exist is impossible to do in a logical argument. Dark Matter actually being a new form of matter is a hypothesis, with a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction. It's a problem that is over 100 years old. I'm sure we'll be excited to figure out what it is no matter what it is.
That's not what I've seen over the past many years. It has been discussed that until we had Dark Matter, we had no working simulation for what we see with the Universe. Prior to Dark Matter calculations, we could simulate a galaxy's evolution, but not the evolution of the Universe and its many galaxies. Of course the rotations were all messed up.
Even if someone had a model of MOND that created what we see at the Universal and galactic level, MOND is fundamentally incompatible with Relativity, the single most tested and accurate theory. Not to mention there has only been one theory of MOND that could replace Relativity, but at the expense of a hugely complex mess of math that even few of the best could wrangle it.
People have already looked into those. We're not seeing any issues with the theory of Gravity at large distances and Gravity really is just the symptom of the warping of space-time, so the second part is moot. Space-time and Gravity are working exactly as predicted. Now that's out of the way.
I liked the sarcastic humor of this kind of response.
Every best of the best server admin trying to fix a computer: We've spent 100 years trying to get this computer to turn on, but only the lights turn on
You: I bet they forgot to plug in the server
Primordial blackholes, in theory, developed while the Universe was still semi-uniformly filled with matter, before any structures had time to form. Blackholes cannot form by just having dense matter, they form from a gravitational gradient. In the very early Universe, energy was uniformly distributed, not allowing for a gradient to occur. A short bit later, we started to get slight biases, allowing for blackholes to spontaneously form from all of the energy that was still densely filling all of space. - Layman's description.
We don't see any gamma radiation filling the parts of space where we can measure dark matter. This indicates that if these blackholes exist, they must be of a mass large enough to not have decayed yet. This gives a minimum per blackhole starting mass. There is also a minimum current mass since we don't see any decernable amounts of Hawking radiation. As we gain more information on this topic, we keep limiting both the lower and upper bound for these theoretical blackholes, and we're running out of space. Looking less and less plausible, but from a hypothetical standpoint, a great potential solution.
Binary blackholes have a decaying orbit, but if you spread them out just a little bit, they will take forever to fall back in. Energy lost by gravitational waves scales with the something like the square/cube/something of the distance.
Vacuums are full of random "excitations" in all of the fields, including the electromagnetic fields. On average of the entire Universe, there is a net of 0 energy, but at any location, there is a chance that anything can happen. There is a chance that an entire new Universe that looks just like ours will appear. Just very low chance.
Photons don't experience time. Of course nothing happens to them. You cannot alter a photon, only create new ones. The act of creating new ones leaves traces.
The number of women who want to be a software engineer is exactly the same across all nations, cultures, and demographics. This rate nearly identically matches the rate of women in software engineering in the USA, but not to say they're the same set, just so happen to be nearly the same rate.
I think what they were getting at is Net neutrality classifies ISPs as a neutral 3rd-party that acts as a communications medium, which makes protects the ISP from whatever data traverses their network on behalf of the customer. If they roll back Net neutrality, technically these protections go away. ISPs were arguing that Net neutrality violates their free speech. The ISPs were telling the government to treat the data the same as speech. If this is the case, then illegal content is also the speech of the ISP and the ISP should be held liable. Can't have your cake and eat it to.
Either you give up your "free speech" and get protection or you get your free speech, but you are now liable for what you say.
As a programmer, I wish I didn't have to code. It's currently a necessary evil. Once the computer does the coding for me, I can get back to programming.
The typical general population man is stronger than the typical Olympic woman. I'm trying to figure out how a couch-potato man has more muscle mass than a woman who is extremely physically active, fits into your logic. Hormones can make a large difference. Just look at steroids.
Unless you plan on having a cable attached to the car, you still need to charge a battery, which will result in a loss of energy. Assuming both have similar holistic inefficiencies, what are the pro/cons for each approach?
They can make storage tanks that a punctured hydrogen tank is safer than a puncture gasoline tank. They fill the tank with a kind of nano-3d structure "foam". They don't need an exact pattern, just a general pattern. The hydrogen gas fill this porous structure, and when punctured, leaks very slowly. Even a catastrophic structural failure would be safe, it would just smolder for a very long time.
I'm sick of the "True Scotsmen" strawman. There are True Scotsmen, it just takes one to recognize one and they're rare. Just look at geniuses. A large portion of them are classified as mentally impaired until they are classified as a genius. Case in point, Spatial-Visual thinkers. They make up 1% of the population but make up 40% of geniuses, and most of them do very poorly in school, many of whom are classified with some learning disability. Turns out they're not disabled, they just think differently than the general population, which makes them "look" stupid, but really they're freaking bright in certain areas.
The True Scotsmen issue is commonly used in situations to describe a rare class of people who are different than "normal" people, and most people look negatively on those who are different, meaning these "True Scotsmen" will not be recognized as the "True Scotsmen" that they are.
39,900% higher risk or 0.8 percentage point. The parent also doesn't account for possibly biases. A great talented engineer, trans or not, probably has a completely different risk than gen pop. A talented engineer is probably similar is rarity as the suicide risk itself. You can meet 10,000 engineers people and not find talent in the lot of them.
Liability insurance has refused to pay out in cases where the client did not hire competent employees. Insurance is in the business of minimizing the amount they have to pay by legally protecting themselves and accurately assessing risk. Incompetent devs are high risk and if the client does not convey this, they're in breach of contact, zero pay out. Has happened more than once for high profile cases.
You sir are technically correct, the best kind. But this usage of "anonymous" is about as anonymous as using private mode browsing. Everything you do is still public, which is many times all you need to figure out who is who. There is all kinds of cool graph theory and statistically analysis that can be done. An alumni did a presentation on his team's work using this kind of information to detect money laundering and to find out who was doing it. How you act can say more about who you are than who you claim to be.
This usage of anonymous also assume you don't do anything like non-private money exchanges to convert between bitcoin and "real" money or purchase goods or services in your name. Bitcoin could be anonymous but rarely is in practice. I also question how strong it is against a focused deanonymization attacks like what Freenet attempts to protect against. It's a very hard problem.
Bitcoin is not supposed to be anonymous, only decentralized. All of the data is public data. Just make a graph, connect the dots, and find out who move how much to whom.
You don't need to worry about environmental impact when mining in space. Then the mineral density comes to mind. There is an asteroid the size of Massachusetts that contains $10,000 quadrillion of iron. Assuming the normal elemental ratio, that would mean it contains about 100,000x more Gold than mined throughout all of human history, in a relatively small chunk of mass.
Most professionals are too incompetent to properly implement perimeter security, what makes you think a typical end user can? There was a discussion in a firewall forum about how someone purchased some VOIP device for their business because it's standard in their industry, and the official support said they need to forward TCP and UDP ports 4,000-60,000. Why not just drop it in the DMZ while we're at it? This user has no choice but to use this device, otherwise they alienate all of their customers.
An acquaintance purchased some $130 Underarmor shoes because they look cool . They claim they are very uncomfortable shoes, but that's OK. Meet the typical person. Functionality comes second to beauty.
Over here, trespassing is considered a mortal threat and the resident may respond as such. If your residence is not safe, then you are not safe. My dad refused to leave my mom's driveway. Sheriff was there in minutes with lights blazing. My father almost got charged with assault just for trespassing because he refused to leave when asked. An attack on a person's property is nearly akin to an attack on the person, mostly depending on how long it drags out.
The only "rule" in language is whatever sounds natural to a natural speak is the correct way. Not ending a sentence with a preposition may be grammatically correct but almost no one speaks that way, making it the wrong way to speak. Language is a living thing and the rules are defined by how it is used, not what a book says. A book about the rules of a language is nothing more than a point in time documentation of how people are using at that moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Contradicted yourself in your first two sentences. An observation is binary and has only two states. It happened or it did not happen. A fact is literally something that is indisputable. If you can dispute an observation, you are disputing whether it exists. If the observation occurred and is true, there is no disputing that it exists, therefor is a fact .
I will concede that an observation could be a pseudo-fact in that there was an error with the instrument that measured it. This is why you need to be able to independently repeat the measurement, probably via multiple methods.
The fact of the matter (pun), is saying Dark Matter does not exist, as of right now, is the same as saying the observations do not exist, as Dark Matter is currently just a collection of unexplaninable observations that seem related.
Dark Matter has been proven. It itself is a collection of observations, aka facts. What we have is a collection of symptoms, but we are still searching for the underlying cause. But to even argue that Dark Matter may not exist is impossible to do in a logical argument. Dark Matter actually being a new form of matter is a hypothesis, with a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction. It's a problem that is over 100 years old. I'm sure we'll be excited to figure out what it is no matter what it is.
That's not what I've seen over the past many years. It has been discussed that until we had Dark Matter, we had no working simulation for what we see with the Universe. Prior to Dark Matter calculations, we could simulate a galaxy's evolution, but not the evolution of the Universe and its many galaxies. Of course the rotations were all messed up.
Even if someone had a model of MOND that created what we see at the Universal and galactic level, MOND is fundamentally incompatible with Relativity, the single most tested and accurate theory. Not to mention there has only been one theory of MOND that could replace Relativity, but at the expense of a hugely complex mess of math that even few of the best could wrangle it.
People have already looked into those. We're not seeing any issues with the theory of Gravity at large distances and Gravity really is just the symptom of the warping of space-time, so the second part is moot. Space-time and Gravity are working exactly as predicted. Now that's out of the way.
I liked the sarcastic humor of this kind of response.
Every best of the best server admin trying to fix a computer: We've spent 100 years trying to get this computer to turn on, but only the lights turn on
You: I bet they forgot to plug in the server
Primordial blackholes, in theory, developed while the Universe was still semi-uniformly filled with matter, before any structures had time to form. Blackholes cannot form by just having dense matter, they form from a gravitational gradient. In the very early Universe, energy was uniformly distributed, not allowing for a gradient to occur. A short bit later, we started to get slight biases, allowing for blackholes to spontaneously form from all of the energy that was still densely filling all of space. - Layman's description.
We don't see any gamma radiation filling the parts of space where we can measure dark matter. This indicates that if these blackholes exist, they must be of a mass large enough to not have decayed yet. This gives a minimum per blackhole starting mass. There is also a minimum current mass since we don't see any decernable amounts of Hawking radiation. As we gain more information on this topic, we keep limiting both the lower and upper bound for these theoretical blackholes, and we're running out of space. Looking less and less plausible, but from a hypothetical standpoint, a great potential solution.
Binary blackholes have a decaying orbit, but if you spread them out just a little bit, they will take forever to fall back in. Energy lost by gravitational waves scales with the something like the square/cube/something of the distance.
Vacuums are full of random "excitations" in all of the fields, including the electromagnetic fields. On average of the entire Universe, there is a net of 0 energy, but at any location, there is a chance that anything can happen. There is a chance that an entire new Universe that looks just like ours will appear. Just very low chance.
Photons don't experience time. Of course nothing happens to them. You cannot alter a photon, only create new ones. The act of creating new ones leaves traces.
The number of women who want to be a software engineer is exactly the same across all nations, cultures, and demographics. This rate nearly identically matches the rate of women in software engineering in the USA, but not to say they're the same set, just so happen to be nearly the same rate.
I think what they were getting at is Net neutrality classifies ISPs as a neutral 3rd-party that acts as a communications medium, which makes protects the ISP from whatever data traverses their network on behalf of the customer. If they roll back Net neutrality, technically these protections go away. ISPs were arguing that Net neutrality violates their free speech. The ISPs were telling the government to treat the data the same as speech. If this is the case, then illegal content is also the speech of the ISP and the ISP should be held liable. Can't have your cake and eat it to.
Either you give up your "free speech" and get protection or you get your free speech, but you are now liable for what you say.
As a programmer, I wish I didn't have to code. It's currently a necessary evil. Once the computer does the coding for me, I can get back to programming.
The typical general population man is stronger than the typical Olympic woman. I'm trying to figure out how a couch-potato man has more muscle mass than a woman who is extremely physically active, fits into your logic. Hormones can make a large difference. Just look at steroids.
I assume the laws of Australia trump those of physics, just like the do math https://science.slashdot.org/s...
Unless you plan on having a cable attached to the car, you still need to charge a battery, which will result in a loss of energy. Assuming both have similar holistic inefficiencies, what are the pro/cons for each approach?
They can make storage tanks that a punctured hydrogen tank is safer than a puncture gasoline tank. They fill the tank with a kind of nano-3d structure "foam". They don't need an exact pattern, just a general pattern. The hydrogen gas fill this porous structure, and when punctured, leaks very slowly. Even a catastrophic structural failure would be safe, it would just smolder for a very long time.
I'm sick of the "True Scotsmen" strawman. There are True Scotsmen, it just takes one to recognize one and they're rare. Just look at geniuses. A large portion of them are classified as mentally impaired until they are classified as a genius. Case in point, Spatial-Visual thinkers. They make up 1% of the population but make up 40% of geniuses, and most of them do very poorly in school, many of whom are classified with some learning disability. Turns out they're not disabled, they just think differently than the general population, which makes them "look" stupid, but really they're freaking bright in certain areas.
The True Scotsmen issue is commonly used in situations to describe a rare class of people who are different than "normal" people, and most people look negatively on those who are different, meaning these "True Scotsmen" will not be recognized as the "True Scotsmen" that they are.
39,900% higher risk or 0.8 percentage point. The parent also doesn't account for possibly biases. A great talented engineer, trans or not, probably has a completely different risk than gen pop. A talented engineer is probably similar is rarity as the suicide risk itself. You can meet 10,000 engineers people and not find talent in the lot of them.
Liability insurance has refused to pay out in cases where the client did not hire competent employees. Insurance is in the business of minimizing the amount they have to pay by legally protecting themselves and accurately assessing risk. Incompetent devs are high risk and if the client does not convey this, they're in breach of contact, zero pay out. Has happened more than once for high profile cases.
You sir are technically correct, the best kind. But this usage of "anonymous" is about as anonymous as using private mode browsing. Everything you do is still public, which is many times all you need to figure out who is who. There is all kinds of cool graph theory and statistically analysis that can be done. An alumni did a presentation on his team's work using this kind of information to detect money laundering and to find out who was doing it. How you act can say more about who you are than who you claim to be.
This usage of anonymous also assume you don't do anything like non-private money exchanges to convert between bitcoin and "real" money or purchase goods or services in your name. Bitcoin could be anonymous but rarely is in practice. I also question how strong it is against a focused deanonymization attacks like what Freenet attempts to protect against. It's a very hard problem.
Is it really a datacenter? Are you sure it's not just a bunch of servers in a large lavatory closet?
Bitcoin is not supposed to be anonymous, only decentralized. All of the data is public data. Just make a graph, connect the dots, and find out who move how much to whom.
You don't need to worry about environmental impact when mining in space. Then the mineral density comes to mind. There is an asteroid the size of Massachusetts that contains $10,000 quadrillion of iron. Assuming the normal elemental ratio, that would mean it contains about 100,000x more Gold than mined throughout all of human history, in a relatively small chunk of mass.
Most professionals are too incompetent to properly implement perimeter security, what makes you think a typical end user can? There was a discussion in a firewall forum about how someone purchased some VOIP device for their business because it's standard in their industry, and the official support said they need to forward TCP and UDP ports 4,000-60,000. Why not just drop it in the DMZ while we're at it? This user has no choice but to use this device, otherwise they alienate all of their customers.
An acquaintance purchased some $130 Underarmor shoes because they look cool . They claim they are very uncomfortable shoes, but that's OK. Meet the typical person. Functionality comes second to beauty.
Over here, trespassing is considered a mortal threat and the resident may respond as such. If your residence is not safe, then you are not safe. My dad refused to leave my mom's driveway. Sheriff was there in minutes with lights blazing. My father almost got charged with assault just for trespassing because he refused to leave when asked. An attack on a person's property is nearly akin to an attack on the person, mostly depending on how long it drags out.
The only "rule" in language is whatever sounds natural to a natural speak is the correct way. Not ending a sentence with a preposition may be grammatically correct but almost no one speaks that way, making it the wrong way to speak. Language is a living thing and the rules are defined by how it is used, not what a book says. A book about the rules of a language is nothing more than a point in time documentation of how people are using at that moment.