Not really germane to my point, but I know what you mean. I'm just frustrated that the article makes their work sound like exactly what you picture 5 year olds doing with test tubes. I'm sure grad students will fair better, but it will still be difficult--I've done exactly what's being described, and it's anything but easy. There's simply too many variables in real world conditions to even consider, let alone write about.
I once tried to replicate an experiment that it turned out the silicate structure of the glass acted as a catalyst. Change the glass type, change the reaction.
Not really. A lot of science is easily accessible, but trying to replicate cutting edge chemistry is not the place to start there. Extracting asprin from bark, 100 year old processes, these are the (still scientific) easy experiments. The public doesn't trust science because we don't even do those with kids--why I have no idea.
Of course the other reason the public distrusts science is because they've been told to by people whom the science inconveniences, but that's not really the scope of this article.
Okay, how is this NOT common knowledge? Of course chemistry is hard, of course it's hard to replicate results--if it weren't, why in the hell do you think it took this long in the first place?
If chemistry were easy, there'd be hundreds of reports of planes downed by terrorists, instead of the 3-4 ATTEMPTED explosions there have been. Chemistry is HARD, good luck doing it with limited ingreditents and improvised equipment.
This is actually a pretty interesting breakthrough. I'd like to see some of the information about the crystals themselves, but it seems pretty straightforward.
No it does require communication. The person/machine/thing in the middle is communicating the results, using the mail. The problem with quantum coherence (big/giant/gaping hole that Einstein attempted to fill for 40 years) is that there don't appear to be ANY hidden variables, i.e. nothing communicating the results to the other end of the entanglement. This is not to say that we're violating any laws, but that your example is precisely the hidden variables solution that was disproved numerous times.
Careful, how many cup-holders a car has used to be the number one selling point, closely followed by what color it was. Ephemeral things may have no intrinsic value, but that doesn't mean they can't drive a real valued market.
Caveat: while not persistent, the human eye can detect a very low photon count, down in the 10 photon range, so technically emitting 1 photon would only be 1/10 as dimmer than visible. Wouldn't persist, however, but the eye and brain are great at averaging.
Have you ever actually EATEN natural corn?? It is NOT EDIBLE! We use all our fancy machines and fertilization because we've CULTIVATED corn to the point that we almost have to. You cannot grow modern corn successfully long term without it, and believe me, you do not want to grow "natural corn." It's fine for feeding cows, or making corn syrup, but it is not human edible.
I've been told that's actually worse for seeing them. Something about not being able to relax the eye muscles sufficiently, which is a requirement for alignment of the image. By that logic, someone with poor muscle control would be able to see it easier.
Running eeeBuntu on my 901 off an 8GB SD card, with default Xandros still on the internal 4GB SSD. Boot time is approx. 70s from cold to desktop. Everything just WORKS. No configs, unless you count futzing with trackpad settings. Firefox 3 has annoying hangs if you don't move the cache to ram, but that's as easy as pointing it to tempfs.
I'm waiting for eeeBuntu 3, which should be out in a week or so according to the forums. By far it's the cleanest, smoothest, easiest build on the 901.
Ah, thanks. Hadn't realized it was limited to strong force binding (article wasn't very clear on that). Of course that couldn't act at astronomical distances. I had thought there was more to the missing of 95% of the perceived mass part.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really germane to my point, but I know what you mean. I'm just frustrated that the article makes their work sound like exactly what you picture 5 year olds doing with test tubes. I'm sure grad students will fair better, but it will still be difficult--I've done exactly what's being described, and it's anything but easy. There's simply too many variables in real world conditions to even consider, let alone write about.
I once tried to replicate an experiment that it turned out the silicate structure of the glass acted as a catalyst. Change the glass type, change the reaction.
Not really. A lot of science is easily accessible, but trying to replicate cutting edge chemistry is not the place to start there. Extracting asprin from bark, 100 year old processes, these are the (still scientific) easy experiments. The public doesn't trust science because we don't even do those with kids--why I have no idea.
Of course the other reason the public distrusts science is because they've been told to by people whom the science inconveniences, but that's not really the scope of this article.
Okay, how is this NOT common knowledge? Of course chemistry is hard, of course it's hard to replicate results--if it weren't, why in the hell do you think it took this long in the first place? If chemistry were easy, there'd be hundreds of reports of planes downed by terrorists, instead of the 3-4 ATTEMPTED explosions there have been. Chemistry is HARD, good luck doing it with limited ingreditents and improvised equipment.
Especially a negaverse. What if it collides with our universe, do we annihilate each other? No thanks :(
They have spied indications of conditions such as those postulated to exist during the beginning of OUR universe.
Sadly, they have NOT seen indications of a NEW infant universe.
This is actually a pretty interesting breakthrough. I'd like to see some of the information about the crystals themselves, but it seems pretty straightforward.
No it does require communication. The person/machine/thing in the middle is communicating the results, using the mail. The problem with quantum coherence (big/giant/gaping hole that Einstein attempted to fill for 40 years) is that there don't appear to be ANY hidden variables, i.e. nothing communicating the results to the other end of the entanglement. This is not to say that we're violating any laws, but that your example is precisely the hidden variables solution that was disproved numerous times.
How did we get onto this branch again?
Careful, how many cup-holders a car has used to be the number one selling point, closely followed by what color it was. Ephemeral things may have no intrinsic value, but that doesn't mean they can't drive a real valued market.
Caveat: while not persistent, the human eye can detect a very low photon count, down in the 10 photon range, so technically emitting 1 photon would only be 1/10 as dimmer than visible. Wouldn't persist, however, but the eye and brain are great at averaging.
Other than that props on the math.
gnostic = imperfect/evil god
gnostic atheist => belief in the lack of an evil god
Just saying.
Have you ever actually EATEN natural corn?? It is NOT EDIBLE! We use all our fancy machines and fertilization because we've CULTIVATED corn to the point that we almost have to. You cannot grow modern corn successfully long term without it, and believe me, you do not want to grow "natural corn." It's fine for feeding cows, or making corn syrup, but it is not human edible.
Sex of course.
That way you're getting screwed that much better.
Between that, this, and the creepy hearing aid commercials late at night, be very afraid.
Sure there is. You're free to have lunch.
Oh, you meant the OTHER free...
I've been told that's actually worse for seeing them. Something about not being able to relax the eye muscles sufficiently, which is a requirement for alignment of the image. By that logic, someone with poor muscle control would be able to see it easier.
OT: Where's Eldavojohn when you need him...
Running eeeBuntu on my 901 off an 8GB SD card, with default Xandros still on the internal 4GB SSD. Boot time is approx. 70s from cold to desktop. Everything just WORKS. No configs, unless you count futzing with trackpad settings. Firefox 3 has annoying hangs if you don't move the cache to ram, but that's as easy as pointing it to tempfs.
I'm waiting for eeeBuntu 3, which should be out in a week or so according to the forums. By far it's the cleanest, smoothest, easiest build on the 901.
Not even that. Felix anyone? http://www.lightsources.org/cms/?pid=1000446 Been around for 15 years or so, I think.
No.
Not to mention the oral involved in the arguements...
On a completely unrelated topic, pumpernickel.
Seed Pleez!!!1!
On the other hand, at last someone will have listened to their album...
I kid, but I've been just a wee bit bitter since they sued me in the late '90s.
Porn...hmmm, no, doesn't seem to work, sorry.
Ah, thanks. Hadn't realized it was limited to strong force binding (article wasn't very clear on that). Of course that couldn't act at astronomical distances. I had thought there was more to the missing of 95% of the perceived mass part.