(If I recall correctly, particles with zero rest mass are conveniently constrained to move at v=c, and particles with nonzero rest mass are always capable of moving at v=0 in some frame.)
It's not just a convenience, without this constraint those zero rest mass particles would have zero energy and therefore not be particles at all. For something to exist it must have energy of some sort, whether that be purely it's rest mass for something at 0K in its own reference frame or pure energy with no rest mass as in the case of a photon. Everything else falls in-between.
I always find comments about the iPhone being too large to be quite funny. How small are your pockets anyways, got too much cash stuffed in there to fit anything else?
I haven't followed the research enough so I could be completely wrong but isn't the reason why cigarettes can have the Surgeon General's health warning on them because the statement has been clinically proven. Has there been any consensus on video game violence and violence in teens.
Over half the world population has been able to create life for some time. Aren't you all a little late to the party? -_-
Actually it's more like half of the world's population is capable of creating life with help from the other half of the population. It takes two to tango last time I checked.
You know that it usually takes 18 months after birth for a child to recognize itself in a mirror and before that they just assume it's another person in the mirror. Can you prove to me that an infant is self aware, because that would be pretty impressive. By your logic it seems like one should be able to abort their child in the first year and a half after birth.
It's not just about the TVs though. It's about wasteful design. A TV has absolutely no need to draw any power when it is turned off. Is it really that inconvenient to wait an extra second for the TV to turn on when there is no standby mode. The point of the legislation is to try to spur innovation away from poor and wasteful design paradigms. Who knows, maybe in designing away from phantom power draw in standby mode they'll develop a TV set that uses even less energy when it is running. It's the same reason why we should heavily invest in renewable energy sources, not because it's economically reasonable now but because it will spur incredible innovation that will put us at the top of the pack when our scarce resources begin to dwindle too low.
I hope you're willing to stand by those statements when the struggle for resources in the future brings about another world war. I'm sure future generations will be fine with the fact that you could have had the exact same level of happiness and prosperity (and improved security) by spending an extra 50 bucks on a TV but decided that $50 was too much of a hassle. It's not like Californian's are living in some backwards stoneage lifestyle because we've maintained our 1970's consumption.
Check this graph out for your enjoyment. Here. Notice how both growth in per capita energy consumption and energy/GDP is lower in california compared to the rest of the US. I'd suggest getting some data before claiming horrific falsehood. I'm sorry I couldn't take the time to comb through the EIA and other such resources but if you take the time you'll find the same information.
The difference is that Televisions are sold at such a higher rate than weapons that the effect of removing the california market from weapons sales doesn't have that much of an affect. Remove california from TV sales and there's an enormous affect. I'm not denying that if top TV manufacturers decided to pull out of california that there wouldn't be backlash in the state but the likelyhood of that is not very high. It takes a lot more stones to shun california in TVs than it does in guns.
Government isn't about to raise taxes to clean up the atmosphere and they certainly aren't going to try to make energy companies fix the problem
I think that there's a good chance that the government will actually start implementing some stringent taxes on emissions. It seems that certain utilities are already gearing up for it, such as postponing building of new coal plants and waiting for the next round of legislation. But overall, good post.
An industry would look a state like CA that wants to foist stupid regulations upon them STRAIGHT in the eye and tell them to "go suck it".
It's kind of hard to tell the 6th/7th largest economy in the world to fuck off. Maybe if your state was a little more successful then the industries wouldn't do whatever we Californians told them, but hey, it's good to be the king.
It's all about foisting a radical green agenda on the rest of us.
Yeah, or it's all about California trying to do something that's in the best interest of future generations that the rest of the nation seems to think is not their problem. You can't just walk into someone's home and eat all their food and take all their money and expect them not to be pissed at you.
ya know maybe they should just make a new power plant.. duh.
Yeah, let's just maintain that status quo that's causing us to consume a hazardous amount of natural resources sending billions over seas and ruining the planet for future generations. I can't believe the mindset of the 1900's and 2000's that seems to think that all the problems that we're too lazy to deal with will just be problems that the future should deal with when they don't have a choice.
California is the only state in the union that I know of that has maintained a steady energy consumption per capita since the 1970s. That means that even with the expansion of silicon valley the amount of energy used per person has stayed the same for over 30 years. Take a look at the rest of the US, it has steadily grown. So maybe people should shut up about how Californians are just a bunch of hippies and start wising up to the fact that maybe you're just jealous that California has succeeded at both economic expansion and energy efficiency.
Well, aside from horrific SI prefix usage you're point is still mostly valid (you managed to subtract 2mm from 1.5cm correctly but then went with 2cm from the other two dimensions). If you do the calculations with taking 2mm from all dimensions you end up with a new volume of about 252 cu. cm (not sq. cm) which is about 84% of the previous volume.
No you don't, but do you purchase a physical device that is dependent on those services. The original conception of iTunes was to be used with an iPod. The music store is ancillary to the device so iTunes will be designed to maximize the iPod and not the music store.
That is also assuming that technology will not advance to where that is no longer a problem which my guess is based on technology throughout history is that if there is a problem humans will solve it.
Yeah, the technology is called nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, conservation, efficiency. We have the technology to deal with this problem, transitioning to it will more than likely be rough, but just trying to deal with the catastrophic affects of global climate change after they happen is not the intelligent technological path.
By mobilizing the buyers of the world to not purchase products that are hurting the environment. It's amazing how much industries react to not getting any money. Now the problem is down to getting the monied nations to get their acts together and start wising up to how much we're destroying our planet in regards to human inhabitation. A tremendous challenge but not quite as challenging as getting everyone to agree.
The US auto industry is one of the only US manufacturing industries that has survived, thrived and grown from 1970-2006. Look at Steel, textiles.... it doesn't appear that unionization and high wages were that destructive.
You're missing a key point in this. Back in the 1970's the U.S. big three were the most dominant manufacturer of cars for U.S. sales. People did not buy important cars in the numbers that they do now. Why is this? Because back then the big three were making new cars that were equal to or better than foreign cars. Then all of a sudden they stopped innovating. Japanese car companies were selling us better fuel efficient cars for similar prices to U.S. cars that were less efficient (and that was after the import tax had been added to them). This doesn't make any sense if U.S. manufactures had innovated. But the car companies still did well because of all the inertia they had built up over the past 50 years. They continued to pay inflated wages and when they realized they had to diminish their payroll to remain competitive they found incredible resistance from the unions. I worked in the industry for a while, and with benefits and health care and wages we were paying our union workers approximately $75/ht. If you work 40 hrs a week for 50 weeks a year that gets to be $150,000 a year. That's outrageous.
Linux is like a classic 60's car and OSX (and iPods, iPhone etc.) is like a modern bmw (and let's just say the Windows is like a mazda, or ford, or whatnot). The gear heads love the classic 60's car because they can tinker with it and play around with the guts to truly enjoy the car just as Linux people love their systems because they can tinker with them and make them do exactly what they want. Conversely, most people that aren't gear heads would hate to own a 50 year old car because they are going to be dealing with problems that they do not know how to fix.
Most people want the bmw because they don't have to think about how to make it work and it comes with a good warranty/service plan. Similarly, apple products don't require much knowledge to install or run the system and apple takes good care of its customers (free in person service checks as opposed to dell that charges something like $100 a year for a few over the phone checks). The gear heads won't like the new BMW because they need a degree in mechanics, electrical engineering and computer science to really change the car. It's not going to give them the satisfaction of access to the guts of the system that their old car gives them.
Finally, less expensive cars like fords, mazdas, hondas, etc. work, they get you where you need to go and they break down a little more than the bmw. Similarly, windows lets you do what you need to do but it might break on you more often. If you're good with old cars you don't see the point in spending more money on a car that's not as good. If you can justify spending the extra money you'll get the more expensive car to have fewer hassles. But most people don't see the value in spending more money for extra features that they don't think are worth it.
Interestingly, since apple computer market share is increasing, it appears that people are valuing the extra benefits as worth the extra cost. With regards to the iPod, since it is a lower cost item, people don't see the added cost as a detriment because the alternatives are truly much less user friendly than an iPod. If you're a gear head you don't care about the user friendliness because you can easily work around it, but if you're average bob then you will get really frustrated by that.
Unions have an interest in themselves. Look at the auto industry, if the unions would give concessions instead of asking for a yearly raise when the auto companies are clearly declining then maybe those companies could be competitive. Unions are wholly responsible for the failure of US auto companies but they aren't guiltless either. Unions were necessary to enact worker safety regulations but now they should just go away.
I don't think it would have been. Obviously it depends on the state law but it appears from the following that it would infact be illegal. I would consider telling an emotionally unstable person, that could be reasonable understood to be inclined to suicide, that the world is better off without them would be considered encouragement.
I'd say that's where amendments to laws need to come in. It seems that law makers are just crafting quick laws to deal with the internet without considering the consequences of those laws.
other than the over-reaction by policy makers and the hysterical members of the public who enable them.
I think that is the main point of the author. I agree that it's important to inform the public of the dangers of new technologies but we need to move away from a society that will blindly pass laws because we don't understand the new technology. Scamming in real life and scamming on the internet, it's all the same. The method may be different but there doesn't need to be a completely different law demonizing the internet, just prosecute under the standard scamming laws. The same applies for bullying, etc.
Fine, I'll give you the nuclear fusion, my comment was more cynicism than anything else. I've heard just a few too many people telling me that we'll be pumping out fusion power plants in the next 20 years when there really is no evidence to support that notion.
My comment about the concrete involved in creating nuclear plants was just an aside to point out that nuclear plants are not completely emissions free. People who aren't afraid of nuclear waste (which is a good thing in my opinion, the fear associated with the waste is a little too maniacal) generally view nuclear as completely clean and I just wanted to point out that there are serious emissions associated with it.
Finally, in response to the need for a fundamental change in the way energy is used and developed, I would actually contend that that statement is not so much based on opinion as you might think. If you examine the natural resources, the impact that our current use of those resources is having on our environment, and the current progression of population, energy use and resource depletion there is actual data to analyze and from where I'm standing the status quo just won't cut it.
To me it seems that people are looking to engineers to develop technology that will handle all the problems that society is facing, even in the face of real physical constraints (such as resource depletion). There are other methods to reach sustainability beyond the reach of improved technology and that involves real change in energy use. As an engineer I've always viewed technological development as the solution to all problems but this is one where I don't think that will be enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Did any of them hear of "faking it"?
...
All the personality test does is weed out people like me.
Obviously you're not too good at "faking it".
(If I recall correctly, particles with zero rest mass are conveniently constrained to move at v=c, and particles with nonzero rest mass are always capable of moving at v=0 in some frame.)
It's not just a convenience, without this constraint those zero rest mass particles would have zero energy and therefore not be particles at all. For something to exist it must have energy of some sort, whether that be purely it's rest mass for something at 0K in its own reference frame or pure energy with no rest mass as in the case of a photon. Everything else falls in-between.
I always find comments about the iPhone being too large to be quite funny. How small are your pockets anyways, got too much cash stuffed in there to fit anything else?
I haven't followed the research enough so I could be completely wrong but isn't the reason why cigarettes can have the Surgeon General's health warning on them because the statement has been clinically proven. Has there been any consensus on video game violence and violence in teens.
Over half the world population has been able to create life for some time. Aren't you all a little late to the party? -_-
Actually it's more like half of the world's population is capable of creating life with help from the other half of the population. It takes two to tango last time I checked.
You know that it usually takes 18 months after birth for a child to recognize itself in a mirror and before that they just assume it's another person in the mirror. Can you prove to me that an infant is self aware, because that would be pretty impressive. By your logic it seems like one should be able to abort their child in the first year and a half after birth.
It's not just about the TVs though. It's about wasteful design. A TV has absolutely no need to draw any power when it is turned off. Is it really that inconvenient to wait an extra second for the TV to turn on when there is no standby mode. The point of the legislation is to try to spur innovation away from poor and wasteful design paradigms. Who knows, maybe in designing away from phantom power draw in standby mode they'll develop a TV set that uses even less energy when it is running. It's the same reason why we should heavily invest in renewable energy sources, not because it's economically reasonable now but because it will spur incredible innovation that will put us at the top of the pack when our scarce resources begin to dwindle too low.
I hope you're willing to stand by those statements when the struggle for resources in the future brings about another world war. I'm sure future generations will be fine with the fact that you could have had the exact same level of happiness and prosperity (and improved security) by spending an extra 50 bucks on a TV but decided that $50 was too much of a hassle. It's not like Californian's are living in some backwards stoneage lifestyle because we've maintained our 1970's consumption.
Check this graph out for your enjoyment. Here. Notice how both growth in per capita energy consumption and energy/GDP is lower in california compared to the rest of the US. I'd suggest getting some data before claiming horrific falsehood. I'm sorry I couldn't take the time to comb through the EIA and other such resources but if you take the time you'll find the same information.
The difference is that Televisions are sold at such a higher rate than weapons that the effect of removing the california market from weapons sales doesn't have that much of an affect. Remove california from TV sales and there's an enormous affect. I'm not denying that if top TV manufacturers decided to pull out of california that there wouldn't be backlash in the state but the likelyhood of that is not very high. It takes a lot more stones to shun california in TVs than it does in guns.
Government isn't about to raise taxes to clean up the atmosphere and they certainly aren't going to try to make energy companies fix the problem
I think that there's a good chance that the government will actually start implementing some stringent taxes on emissions. It seems that certain utilities are already gearing up for it, such as postponing building of new coal plants and waiting for the next round of legislation. But overall, good post.
An industry would look a state like CA that wants to foist stupid regulations upon them STRAIGHT in the eye and tell them to "go suck it".
It's kind of hard to tell the 6th/7th largest economy in the world to fuck off. Maybe if your state was a little more successful then the industries wouldn't do whatever we Californians told them, but hey, it's good to be the king.
It's all about foisting a radical green agenda on the rest of us.
Yeah, or it's all about California trying to do something that's in the best interest of future generations that the rest of the nation seems to think is not their problem. You can't just walk into someone's home and eat all their food and take all their money and expect them not to be pissed at you.
ya know maybe they should just make a new power plant.. duh.
Yeah, let's just maintain that status quo that's causing us to consume a hazardous amount of natural resources sending billions over seas and ruining the planet for future generations. I can't believe the mindset of the 1900's and 2000's that seems to think that all the problems that we're too lazy to deal with will just be problems that the future should deal with when they don't have a choice.
California is the only state in the union that I know of that has maintained a steady energy consumption per capita since the 1970s. That means that even with the expansion of silicon valley the amount of energy used per person has stayed the same for over 30 years. Take a look at the rest of the US, it has steadily grown. So maybe people should shut up about how Californians are just a bunch of hippies and start wising up to the fact that maybe you're just jealous that California has succeeded at both economic expansion and energy efficiency.
Well, aside from horrific SI prefix usage you're point is still mostly valid (you managed to subtract 2mm from 1.5cm correctly but then went with 2cm from the other two dimensions). If you do the calculations with taking 2mm from all dimensions you end up with a new volume of about 252 cu. cm (not sq. cm) which is about 84% of the previous volume.
No you don't, but do you purchase a physical device that is dependent on those services. The original conception of iTunes was to be used with an iPod. The music store is ancillary to the device so iTunes will be designed to maximize the iPod and not the music store.
That is also assuming that technology will not advance to where that is no longer a problem which my guess is based on technology throughout history is that if there is a problem humans will solve it.
Yeah, the technology is called nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, conservation, efficiency. We have the technology to deal with this problem, transitioning to it will more than likely be rough, but just trying to deal with the catastrophic affects of global climate change after they happen is not the intelligent technological path.
By mobilizing the buyers of the world to not purchase products that are hurting the environment. It's amazing how much industries react to not getting any money. Now the problem is down to getting the monied nations to get their acts together and start wising up to how much we're destroying our planet in regards to human inhabitation. A tremendous challenge but not quite as challenging as getting everyone to agree.
The US auto industry is one of the only US manufacturing industries that has survived, thrived and grown from 1970-2006. Look at Steel, textiles.... it doesn't appear that unionization and high wages were that destructive.
You're missing a key point in this. Back in the 1970's the U.S. big three were the most dominant manufacturer of cars for U.S. sales. People did not buy important cars in the numbers that they do now. Why is this? Because back then the big three were making new cars that were equal to or better than foreign cars. Then all of a sudden they stopped innovating. Japanese car companies were selling us better fuel efficient cars for similar prices to U.S. cars that were less efficient (and that was after the import tax had been added to them). This doesn't make any sense if U.S. manufactures had innovated. But the car companies still did well because of all the inertia they had built up over the past 50 years. They continued to pay inflated wages and when they realized they had to diminish their payroll to remain competitive they found incredible resistance from the unions. I worked in the industry for a while, and with benefits and health care and wages we were paying our union workers approximately $75/ht. If you work 40 hrs a week for 50 weeks a year that gets to be $150,000 a year. That's outrageous.
I'm going to try something bold, a car analogy.
Linux is like a classic 60's car and OSX (and iPods, iPhone etc.) is like a modern bmw (and let's just say the Windows is like a mazda, or ford, or whatnot). The gear heads love the classic 60's car because they can tinker with it and play around with the guts to truly enjoy the car just as Linux people love their systems because they can tinker with them and make them do exactly what they want. Conversely, most people that aren't gear heads would hate to own a 50 year old car because they are going to be dealing with problems that they do not know how to fix.
Most people want the bmw because they don't have to think about how to make it work and it comes with a good warranty/service plan. Similarly, apple products don't require much knowledge to install or run the system and apple takes good care of its customers (free in person service checks as opposed to dell that charges something like $100 a year for a few over the phone checks). The gear heads won't like the new BMW because they need a degree in mechanics, electrical engineering and computer science to really change the car. It's not going to give them the satisfaction of access to the guts of the system that their old car gives them.
Finally, less expensive cars like fords, mazdas, hondas, etc. work, they get you where you need to go and they break down a little more than the bmw. Similarly, windows lets you do what you need to do but it might break on you more often. If you're good with old cars you don't see the point in spending more money on a car that's not as good. If you can justify spending the extra money you'll get the more expensive car to have fewer hassles. But most people don't see the value in spending more money for extra features that they don't think are worth it.
Interestingly, since apple computer market share is increasing, it appears that people are valuing the extra benefits as worth the extra cost. With regards to the iPod, since it is a lower cost item, people don't see the added cost as a detriment because the alternatives are truly much less user friendly than an iPod. If you're a gear head you don't care about the user friendliness because you can easily work around it, but if you're average bob then you will get really frustrated by that.
Unions have an interest in themselves. Look at the auto industry, if the unions would give concessions instead of asking for a yearly raise when the auto companies are clearly declining then maybe those companies could be competitive. Unions are wholly responsible for the failure of US auto companies but they aren't guiltless either. Unions were necessary to enact worker safety regulations but now they should just go away.
I don't think it would have been. Obviously it depends on the state law but it appears from the following that it would infact be illegal. I would consider telling an emotionally unstable person, that could be reasonable understood to be inclined to suicide, that the world is better off without them would be considered encouragement.
"A person who willfully, in any manner, advises, encourages, abets or assists another person in taking the latter's life, is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree."
I'd say that's where amendments to laws need to come in. It seems that law makers are just crafting quick laws to deal with the internet without considering the consequences of those laws.
other than the over-reaction by policy makers and the hysterical members of the public who enable them.
I think that is the main point of the author. I agree that it's important to inform the public of the dangers of new technologies but we need to move away from a society that will blindly pass laws because we don't understand the new technology. Scamming in real life and scamming on the internet, it's all the same. The method may be different but there doesn't need to be a completely different law demonizing the internet, just prosecute under the standard scamming laws. The same applies for bullying, etc.
Fine, I'll give you the nuclear fusion, my comment was more cynicism than anything else. I've heard just a few too many people telling me that we'll be pumping out fusion power plants in the next 20 years when there really is no evidence to support that notion.
My comment about the concrete involved in creating nuclear plants was just an aside to point out that nuclear plants are not completely emissions free. People who aren't afraid of nuclear waste (which is a good thing in my opinion, the fear associated with the waste is a little too maniacal) generally view nuclear as completely clean and I just wanted to point out that there are serious emissions associated with it.
Finally, in response to the need for a fundamental change in the way energy is used and developed, I would actually contend that that statement is not so much based on opinion as you might think. If you examine the natural resources, the impact that our current use of those resources is having on our environment, and the current progression of population, energy use and resource depletion there is actual data to analyze and from where I'm standing the status quo just won't cut it.
To me it seems that people are looking to engineers to develop technology that will handle all the problems that society is facing, even in the face of real physical constraints (such as resource depletion). There are other methods to reach sustainability beyond the reach of improved technology and that involves real change in energy use. As an engineer I've always viewed technological development as the solution to all problems but this is one where I don't think that will be enough.