How exactly do you think this self-nationalization would change things?
Those of us with a scrap of empathy or self-preservation instinct would simply enact universal treaties or international laws which would quickly converge to something very similar to the laws we have now.
Because, you jackasses, as a scientist you can't just do whatever the fuck you feel like. Your time and equipment are paid for by grants which oblige you to spend your time working on something that at least resembles the work laid out in your grant proposal.
Performing experiments takes a serious investment of time and money, while critiquing methodology can be done in one's spare time.
Besides, if someone is making dubious claims based on flawed methodology, why should it be someone else's job to redo their work properly?
If you want to make serious claims and have them be believed, you'd better be able to back them up and be prepared to respond to the people who want more evidence.
This is not whining, it is proper skepticism towards a remarkable claim.
Your own example demonstrates that accuracy and latency are linked.. fluctuations in distance lead to changes in arrival time (accuracy) which are proportional to the mean distance travelled (latency). These kinds of fluctuations are completely impossible to avoid in any real-world situation, so a process with a longer latency will also have less accuracy, all other things being equal.
As an aside, usually when referring to something taking 'picoseconds', what is meant is 'on the order of picoseconds' i.e. closer to one picosecond than 10 picoseconds or 0.1 picoseconds. If you meant to express about 100ps you would say 'on the order of hundreds of picoseconds).
So what you are saying is GGP is only wrong by a factor of 100,000, not 1,000,000?
I'd say GP nailed it pretty close.
As to the latency vs accuracy nitpick.. if your reaction takes 10 minutes, then your reaction rate would have to be consistent to within 1 part in 6,000,000,000 for it to be accurate to 100ns when it finished... not very realistic.
Latency is not the same as accuracy, but in the real world where things are not perfectly consistent they are inevitably linked.
Really... I like the Unitarian Universalists and am considering becoming a member, but I have to say that they have made me feel much more "encouraged" to contribute monetarily than I ever felt when attending Catholic services.
No, you are wrong.
There is a change in mass due to the change in bond energies, which is completely analogous to the energy released in nuclear reactions, only the magnitude is of course far smaller.
Of course this mass difference is far too small to be observed in everyday situations, but the rule you are quoting is a high-school chemistry approximation, not the full reality.
And if you count all the subatomic particles before and after a nuclear reaction, they are all still there as well.
It is only in a matter/antimatter reaction that matter particles are destroyed.
GP is correct, the chemical and nuclear reactions are completely analogous, in each there is a change in mass due to a change in bond energies, but this change is much smaller in magnitude in chemical reactions.
No, we're saying it's a good thing that children not have deadly force available to them, because they often lack the judgement and perspective to employ it properly.
What do you propose we do about the hard fact that the world doesn't have enough arable land to support even half our current population living a lifestyle like yours.
It's certainly tempting to go try to go back to nature and self-sufficiency, but the only thing that's keeping us from mass death is the economies of scale brought by mass production.
Leaving aside any engineering objections to your post, can you honestly say that you really believe that moral equivalence?
Do you truly see no other moral objection to murder than the loss of economic activity?
Does this mean it is less morally wrong to kill third world inhabitants, whose lifetime economic activity will be far less than $1M?
If I donate $1M to your family or a charity of your choice, may I kill you with no moral repercussions?
Here's a clue for you (from the aforementioned info page):
"Manuscripts should be submitted electronically in PDF format to the editorial office at apeiron@austin.utexas.edu. "
Forgot to say, although I personally think climate change is quite real, the GP's point is very valid and a real concern.
Your disingenuous response is typical of the left-wing side in the debate, and it does little to convince anyone.
Hello??? Have you ever been involved with a university?
Of course there is a PR department, and everything the public sees comes from them, not from peer-reviewed journals.
Theories which postulate 'hidden variables' have been ruled out by Bell's Inequality, which has been experimentally verified with a number of model quantum systems.
These experiments have shown that it is impossible to construct a theory of hidden variables that will correctly explain all the possible measurements which can be performed on the entangled pair.
Fundamentally, this is what differentiates quantum entanglement from classical correlation, and is the core of quantum information theory and quantum computing.
Say you perform your Morse code "reaction" (actually measurement of your half of the entangled pairs). This will collapse the entanglement, and if your partner then measured their particles, they would get the exact opposite results that you got (because the particles were entangled.)
However - unless they can compare their measurements to yours, their results look exactly like random noise - and this is independent of whether or not the particles were entangled when they measured them. In other words, there is no way to detect the presence or absence of entanglement without classical slow than light communication with the hold of the other half of the entangled pair.
You might enjoy "The Evolution of Human Science", by Ted Chiang, a short story from "Stories of Your Life and Others". It explores the role of human researchers in a future where benevolent but disinterested artificial intelligences have far surpassed human intellectual potential.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep.. and just slap in a cpu, flash, battery, e-ink panel and some assorted chips and you don't even need to buy the kindle!
How exactly do you think this self-nationalization would change things?
Those of us with a scrap of empathy or self-preservation instinct would simply enact universal treaties or international laws which would quickly converge to something very similar to the laws we have now.
Because, you jackasses, as a scientist you can't just do whatever the fuck you feel like.
Your time and equipment are paid for by grants which oblige you to spend your time working on something that at least resembles the work laid out in your grant proposal.
Performing experiments takes a serious investment of time and money, while critiquing methodology can be done in one's spare time.
Besides, if someone is making dubious claims based on flawed methodology, why should it be someone else's job to redo their work properly?
If you want to make serious claims and have them be believed, you'd better be able to back them up and be prepared to respond to the people who want more evidence.
This is not whining, it is proper skepticism towards a remarkable claim.
Your own example demonstrates that accuracy and latency are linked.. fluctuations in distance lead to changes in arrival time (accuracy) which are proportional to the mean distance travelled (latency).
These kinds of fluctuations are completely impossible to avoid in any real-world situation, so a process with a longer latency will also have less accuracy, all other things being equal.
As an aside, usually when referring to something taking 'picoseconds', what is meant is 'on the order of picoseconds' i.e. closer to one picosecond than 10 picoseconds or 0.1 picoseconds. If you meant to express about 100ps you would say 'on the order of hundreds of picoseconds).
So what you are saying is GGP is only wrong by a factor of 100,000, not 1,000,000?
I'd say GP nailed it pretty close.
As to the latency vs accuracy nitpick.. if your reaction takes 10 minutes, then your reaction rate would have to be consistent to within 1 part in 6,000,000,000 for it to be accurate to 100ns when it finished... not very realistic.
Latency is not the same as accuracy, but in the real world where things are not perfectly consistent they are inevitably linked.
it most certainly does
you are a retard... look up the definition of percentage some time.
Really... I like the Unitarian Universalists and am considering becoming a member, but I have to say that they have made me feel much more "encouraged" to contribute monetarily than I ever felt when attending Catholic services.
No, you are wrong. There is a change in mass due to the change in bond energies, which is completely analogous to the energy released in nuclear reactions, only the magnitude is of course far smaller.
Of course this mass difference is far too small to be observed in everyday situations, but the rule you are quoting is a high-school chemistry approximation, not the full reality.
Someone with a nick like yours should really know better.
Just as chemical reactions conserve the number of atoms, nuclear reactions conserve the number of subatomic particles.
Only in a matter/antimatter reaction will the number of massive particles be changed.
And if you count all the subatomic particles before and after a nuclear reaction, they are all still there as well.
It is only in a matter/antimatter reaction that matter particles are destroyed.
GP is correct, the chemical and nuclear reactions are completely analogous, in each there is a change in mass due to a change in bond energies, but this change is much smaller in magnitude in chemical reactions.
Yes, you're missing something:
sail (note shape)
O
o
-|-
^ - you
stupid writers reported the total force on the sail (1.12mN) = 0.0002 lbf as the per-photon pressure.
No, we're saying it's a good thing that children not have deadly force available to them, because they often lack the judgement and perspective to employ it properly.
Lovely.
What do you propose we do about the hard fact that the world doesn't have enough arable land to support even half our current population living a lifestyle like yours.
It's certainly tempting to go try to go back to nature and self-sufficiency, but the only thing that's keeping us from mass death is the economies of scale brought by mass production.
Leaving aside any engineering objections to your post, can you honestly say that you really believe that moral equivalence?
Do you truly see no other moral objection to murder than the loss of economic activity?
Does this mean it is less morally wrong to kill third world inhabitants, whose lifetime economic activity will be far less than $1M?
If I donate $1M to your family or a charity of your choice, may I kill you with no moral repercussions?
Here's a clue for you (from the aforementioned info page): "Manuscripts should be submitted electronically in PDF format to the editorial office at apeiron@austin.utexas.edu. "
Forgot to say, although I personally think climate change is quite real, the GP's point is very valid and a real concern. Your disingenuous response is typical of the left-wing side in the debate, and it does little to convince anyone.
Hello??? Have you ever been involved with a university? Of course there is a PR department, and everything the public sees comes from them, not from peer-reviewed journals.
Theories which postulate 'hidden variables' have been ruled out by Bell's Inequality, which has been experimentally verified with a number of model quantum systems.
These experiments have shown that it is impossible to construct a theory of hidden variables that will correctly explain all the possible measurements which can be performed on the entangled pair.
Fundamentally, this is what differentiates quantum entanglement from classical correlation, and is the core of quantum information theory and quantum computing.
You are wrong.
Say you perform your Morse code "reaction" (actually measurement of your half of the entangled pairs). This will collapse the entanglement, and if your partner then measured their particles, they would get the exact opposite results that you got (because the particles were entangled.)
However - unless they can compare their measurements to yours, their results look exactly like random noise - and this is independent of whether or not the particles were entangled when they measured them. In other words, there is no way to detect the presence or absence of entanglement without classical slow than light communication with the hold of the other half of the entangled pair.
You might enjoy "The Evolution of Human Science", by Ted Chiang, a short story from "Stories of Your Life and Others". It explores the role of human researchers in a future where benevolent but disinterested artificial intelligences have far surpassed human intellectual potential.
posting to undo insightful mod meant for gp