Well, not to be too nitpicky as well, but I think it's pretty well accepted that QCD is the theory of the strong interactions (of course, it depends on what you mean by "high" energies). What asymptotic freedom means is that you can calculate QCD perturbatively at high enough energies, but, as you mentioned, at lower energies you can't. But just because we can't always get answers out of QCD doesn't mean that it's not right - just, as you said, we don't completely understand it.
But it's still a fascinating subject to work on. Oh, and to be fair, lattice QCD calculations nowadays are getting well below 10% precision for certain quantities, and improving all of the time - so it'll be interesting to see what happens there.
We just need two things: More episodes, More often. Maybe it's just me, but I like hearing you guys ramble on and on about nothing in particular. Or maybe it's just the sweet sound of Rob's voice:P
Perhaps you should add another cardboard box, and make it a condo. Then you can get R2 to hold the wet bar.
From what I've heard, the problem was that some G3s wouldn't notice the G4s processors at all, and some would think that they did, but they wouldn't, so it's basically a motherboard problem or such like.
To quote someone who is much more in the know than I:
Older Power Macintosh ROMs simply do not have the proper support for the G4 processor and in some cases, believe that they do, but behave very incorrectly.
Bah, I agree--inform the people that something's wrong, rather than legislating. Actually, this is a symptom of something larger that's wrong with society--related to the larger number of mostly frivolous lawsuits out there. The moral of the story is: Don't just go out there and sue someone or try to get a law passed if something bad happens, take responsibility into your own hands for once!
Still, it manages to stop most laws, and either this is just a phase society's going through, or we're really headed in the wrong direction.
Governmental bloat sucks, but unless there's an emergency, if you try to change it by legislation or something like that, someone'll take advantage of the situation to put in some loophole to help himself. Still, if you want to try to change human nature, good luck. As seen, there're always those few trolls out there.
Now, if we could just get people to think seriously more often...
Not just that, the Founding Fathers wanted to reduce the possibility of changing the system, which is very flexible, if you consider how the politics have changed, so that it would remain stable and some temporary majority or whim of the times wouldn't strip people of their rights or make some ill-considered mistake.
As to your other point, who would make up the test? What would be on the test? If you restricted it to information that could be found easily on the candidate's web page, I could go with that. Although then we'd have to consider what to do if they didn't have a web page? Government subsidies anyone?:)
Although personally, I think that each person has an equal right to vote, no matter what (okay, if they're over 18...). It's one of those things about being "created equal"...
>Our government, on paper, is pretty damned cool, but is interpreted and carried out ineffectively. Everyone wants to make a >law now. If your child rides his bike into the middle of the highway, his mother starts a national campaign and lobbies >legislation to make highways safer for stupid kids riding their HotWheels bike into them.
If our government is done in the wrong way, then if it was done in the "right way", we'd probably have a lot more damnned useless laws than we do now. The system is made to filter out nearly all of the laws proposed, and if something like that is passes, it's because people apparently want it (who doesn't want their kid safe, eh? it's because people aren't as well informed about the consequences of the regulation, or just don't care). Just be glad it's not easy to make major changes, or the Internet'd more than likely be regulated now.
>While I don't think it will solve anything to have more people voting (can you say "populism" anyone), anyone who does >believe in democracy cannot argue that the current system isn't horribly broken.
Well, it depends on what you consider democracy. The US is technically a republic, which means that most of people affect the government in other ways besides voting on every little issue that comes up. IMHO, what we have works pretty well--major changes won't happen unless there's some emergency, which is a Good Thing. That is, unless you'd rather have more rules cluttering up your life and the dominant faction being able to do what they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, not to be too nitpicky as well, but I think it's pretty well accepted that QCD is the theory of the strong interactions (of course, it depends on what you mean by "high" energies). What asymptotic freedom means is that you can calculate QCD perturbatively at high enough energies, but, as you mentioned, at lower energies you can't. But just because we can't always get answers out of QCD doesn't mean that it's not right - just, as you said, we don't completely understand it.
But it's still a fascinating subject to work on. Oh, and to be fair, lattice QCD calculations nowadays are getting well below 10% precision for certain quantities, and improving all of the time - so it'll be interesting to see what happens there.
Another great episode, guys!
:P
We just need two things: More episodes,
More often. Maybe it's just me, but I like hearing you guys ramble on and on about nothing in particular. Or maybe it's just the sweet sound of Rob's voice
Perhaps you should add another cardboard box, and make it a condo. Then you can get R2 to hold the wet bar.
From what I've heard, the problem was that some G3s wouldn't notice the G4s processors at all, and some would think that they did, but they wouldn't, so it's basically a motherboard problem or such like.
To quote someone who is much more in the know than I:
You may think so. Human nature will follow us everywhere we go, my friend...
Bah, I agree--inform the people that something's wrong, rather than legislating. Actually, this is a symptom of something larger that's wrong with society--related to the larger number of mostly frivolous lawsuits out there. The moral of the story is: Don't just go out there and sue someone or try to get a law passed if something bad happens, take responsibility into your own hands for once!
Still, it manages to stop most laws, and either this is just a phase society's going through, or we're really headed in the wrong direction.
Governmental bloat sucks, but unless there's an emergency, if you try to change it by legislation or something like that, someone'll take advantage of the situation to put in some loophole to help himself. Still, if you want to try to change human nature, good luck. As seen, there're always those few trolls out there.
Now, if we could just get people to think seriously more often...
Not just that, the Founding Fathers wanted to reduce the possibility of changing the system, which is very flexible, if you consider how the politics have changed, so that it would remain stable and some temporary majority or whim of the times wouldn't strip people of their rights or make some ill-considered mistake.
:)
As to your other point, who would make up the test? What would be on the test? If you restricted it to information that could be found easily on the candidate's web page, I could go with that. Although then we'd have to consider what to do if they didn't have a web page? Government subsidies anyone?
Although personally, I think that each person has an equal right to vote, no matter what (okay, if they're over 18...). It's one of those things about being "created equal"...
>Our government, on paper, is pretty damned cool, but is interpreted and carried out ineffectively. Everyone wants to make a
>law now. If your child rides his bike into the middle of the highway, his mother starts a national campaign and lobbies
>legislation to make highways safer for stupid kids riding their HotWheels bike into them.
If our government is done in the wrong way, then if it was done in the "right way", we'd probably have a lot more damnned useless laws than we do now. The system is made to filter out nearly all of the laws proposed, and if something like that is passes, it's because people apparently want it (who doesn't want their kid safe, eh? it's because people aren't as well informed about the consequences of the regulation, or just don't care). Just be glad it's not easy to make major changes, or the Internet'd more than likely be regulated now.
>While I don't think it will solve anything to have more people voting (can you say "populism" anyone), anyone who does
>believe in democracy cannot argue that the current system isn't horribly broken.
Well, it depends on what you consider democracy. The US is technically a republic, which means that most of people affect the government in other ways besides voting on every little issue that comes up. IMHO, what we have works pretty well--major changes won't happen unless there's some emergency, which is a Good Thing. That is, unless you'd rather have more rules cluttering up your life and the dominant faction being able to do what they want.