I checked, and electrons accelerated via plasma shocks do indeed emit synchrotron radiation. What is your source for this claim that the energy will be purely additive?
There's no problem in daisy chaining them, but I don't think you can guarantee the same energy boost each time. One of the big physics problems here is that accelerating charged particles radiate when they are accelerated, which acts as a sort of friction. The amount that is radiated increases quite dramatically as the particle gets closer to the speed of light (the energy loss scales as (E/(mc^2))^4). In practice, this means that if you dump a bunch of energy into an electron to accelerate it, you'll only add a fraction of that amount to its kinetic energy (the rest will be lost in radiation).
Given this, the naive expectation is that each subsequent box will add less and less to the energy of the particles. The disclaimer here is that I haven't studied the specific physics of plasma shock acceleration, so I don't know how such acceleration scales with energy. I do know, however, that this is the exact same mechanism that is suspected to be behind the "oh my god" particles (single particles with more than ten million times the energy that the LHC can produce): plasma shock fronts in the galaxy accelerate some small fraction of the interstellar protons to unbelievable speeds.
Before the CMB was emitted, the entire universe was an extremely smoothly-distributed ionized plasma. There were no galaxies or stars or planets: just a smooth plasma whose temperature varied from place to place by about one part in 100,000. We can see an image of the universe when this plasma cooled to the point it became a gas. This image shows a very clear signature of dark matter (in fact, it's the most sensitive detection of dark matter density that exists).
This proposal has the same sort of problem: how would you produce such extremely dense objects when the matter was distributed so evenly?
It is generally true that such studies should be considered preliminary. It's possible that this vaccine won't work for humans, or that the ebola virus will evolve around the vaccine so rapidly that it has no impact.
But clearly this sounds like a very promising start, and the researchers absolutely deserve to have more funding to finish their work. This is exactly the kind of thing that the NIH is designed to fund. But, due to Republican fuckery, NIH funding has been cut.
The downside of that is far, far cheaper for the consumer than overdrafting a bank account (unless you run high balances for extended periods of time....then the charges obviously start racking up).
The real problem with credit cards (in the US at least) comes with the 0% interest deals. In the US, if you get a 0% interest promotion, be damned sure you pay it off in time. If you don't, then all of the interest for the entire promotional period is charged to you. I bought a computer on a 0% interest deal some years back for something in the range of $1500 or so. If I had let the promotional period expire, I probably would have owed another $400 or so. Fortunately, I paid attention to the fine print and was careful to have it completely paid off a few months in advance.
That doesn't make it not an anti-trust issue. It's an anti-trust issue because Amazon has outsized power in the e-book market, and if Amazon were able to negotiate a discount from Hachette, then that would likely be a discount that other vendors could not get, making it harder for other e-book vendors to compete with Amazon.
The Amazon-Hachette deal is a completely different situation. Amazon is using its market power to strong-arm Hachette into providing lower prices to Amazon than Hachette offers to other resellers. This is a classic case of collusion, and should be stopped on anti-trust grounds.
The security key won't respond if it doesn't receive the right message from the website. Some detail here:
http://fidoalliance.org/specs/...
(See section 6, page 11)
1. The disparity remains even after correcting for career differences. Women within the same career make substantially less, in virtually every career.
2. The differences in careers between men and women are also a result of sexism. So the headline number of 70 cents on the dollar is the correct one to use.
That article states explicitly that women are the majority of domestic violence victims. It's just trying to state that men are more common victims than is frequently believed. Which makes sense. But women still make up a very disproportionate fraction of injuries and murders in domestic violence.
In particular: "A Canadian study showed that 7% of women and 6% of men were abused by their current or former partners, but female victims of spousal violence were more than twice as likely to be injured as male victims, three times more likely to fear for their life, twice as likely to be stalked, and twice as likely to experience more than ten incidents of violence."
So yeah, you can twist the numbers to make it look as if men are the victims here. While some are, most are not.
If there was actual harm caused by failing to hire white men, then sure, it would make sense for the government to get involved. If, say, the white men who were hired were harassed or had their careers stunted, that would be a different matter. But if we're just talking about hiring practices, then there is precisely zero harm caused, because said white men have a much higher chance of getting hired in general.
I don't really see why. If Infosys is being discriminatory, the non-Indian workers should console themselves that they have significantly better prospects at 99+% of American companies than Indians do. The US government should be focused on claims made by marginalized groups, not worrying about the tiny fraction of cases where white men are discriminated against.
Right. This is a truly ridiculous conclusion. It's also completely at odds with the current data which suggest that transforming developed economies to renewable energy won't be very expensive at all: if it won't be that expensive to transition developed economies, then it's probably going to be cheaper for developing economies to expand their energy footprint through renewable resources than it would be for them to try to just use fossil fuels.
It would be pretty trivial for security personnel to give people access who shouldn't have access. They themselves may not know enough to release proprietary information, but they could open the door for somebody else to do so. So yes, it is important that the security be decently-paid and have good job satisfaction. Otherwise they become an easy avenue for access for anybody that wants it.
This isn't just about the government invading peoples' rights. This is also about basic data security.
These days, people often carry quite a lot of sensitive information on their phones (e.g. sensitive pictures). If the contents of the phone are not encrypted, then anybody who gets their hands on the phone can access that information. This is extremely unsafe. I could easily imagine somebody building small, hand-held device which will plug into an iOS or Android phone and download its contents within a minute or two (such devices may already exist, I don't know, I haven't looked). All you'd need is for somebody to leave their phone unattended for a short time, and all of their data could be lost.
So what the FBI is really asking here is for people to never be safe with their data. They're not just asking for the ability to look at your information, if they were to be listened to, your information wouldn't be safe from anybody else either.
Looks like the plaintiff in the case is one David Elliott, who owns the domains "googleDonaldTrump.com" and "googlegaycruises.com" (maybe others as well? I don't know...). Getting rid of spam URL's like these should improve the overall Internet.
1. Rapes in prisons hardly factor into the daily lives of people outside of prisons. Women in prisons face a far, far higher chance of being raped than men in prisons.
2. Women are approximately three times more likely to be on the receiving end of intimate partner violence, according to this link.
3. Black people are far, far more likely to be convicted of the same crime than white people, so it isn't at all clear that they are more violent in actuality.
How about, "More than their percent in the population," which in this case would be about 50%. Women face injury and death in far, far higher numbers at the hands of men than the reverse. They also face rape at the hands of men in far, far higher numbers than the reverse. And when they post online, they face threats of rape in far, far higher numbers than men do.
So, you think it's extreme to suggest that women are people who deserve fair treatment? Who shouldn't have to deal disproportionately with violence and rape, and threats of the same?
Indeed. The tone of the article was seriously grating. Open source is, I think, good for the industry as a whole. It's also good for consumers. But it is not unambiguously good for every individual software company.
I'd really like it if we could get some government regulation to promote more open source software, but saying, "This one guy I know was really really successful using open source!" in no way means that every business will be similarly successful.
Obtaining observations that are close enough to the event horizon for this theoretical model to make a difference are really really difficult to perform. For instance, our current best estimates for the radius of the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy are only able to nail it down to smaller than five and a half times the Schwarzschild radius. So I'm pretty sure that this model is well within current observational limits.
It probably won't be long, however, before we have observations that can distinguish between a Schwarzschild-radius black hole and this new model of a black hole.
Slashdot Mirror
I checked, and electrons accelerated via plasma shocks do indeed emit synchrotron radiation. What is your source for this claim that the energy will be purely additive?
There's no problem in daisy chaining them, but I don't think you can guarantee the same energy boost each time. One of the big physics problems here is that accelerating charged particles radiate when they are accelerated, which acts as a sort of friction. The amount that is radiated increases quite dramatically as the particle gets closer to the speed of light (the energy loss scales as (E/(mc^2))^4). In practice, this means that if you dump a bunch of energy into an electron to accelerate it, you'll only add a fraction of that amount to its kinetic energy (the rest will be lost in radiation).
Given this, the naive expectation is that each subsequent box will add less and less to the energy of the particles. The disclaimer here is that I haven't studied the specific physics of plasma shock acceleration, so I don't know how such acceleration scales with energy. I do know, however, that this is the exact same mechanism that is suspected to be behind the "oh my god" particles (single particles with more than ten million times the energy that the LHC can produce): plasma shock fronts in the galaxy accelerate some small fraction of the interstellar protons to unbelievable speeds.
Before the CMB was emitted, the entire universe was an extremely smoothly-distributed ionized plasma. There were no galaxies or stars or planets: just a smooth plasma whose temperature varied from place to place by about one part in 100,000. We can see an image of the universe when this plasma cooled to the point it became a gas. This image shows a very clear signature of dark matter (in fact, it's the most sensitive detection of dark matter density that exists).
This proposal has the same sort of problem: how would you produce such extremely dense objects when the matter was distributed so evenly?
It is generally true that such studies should be considered preliminary. It's possible that this vaccine won't work for humans, or that the ebola virus will evolve around the vaccine so rapidly that it has no impact.
But clearly this sounds like a very promising start, and the researchers absolutely deserve to have more funding to finish their work. This is exactly the kind of thing that the NIH is designed to fund. But, due to Republican fuckery, NIH funding has been cut.
The downside of that is far, far cheaper for the consumer than overdrafting a bank account (unless you run high balances for extended periods of time....then the charges obviously start racking up).
The real problem with credit cards (in the US at least) comes with the 0% interest deals. In the US, if you get a 0% interest promotion, be damned sure you pay it off in time. If you don't, then all of the interest for the entire promotional period is charged to you. I bought a computer on a 0% interest deal some years back for something in the range of $1500 or so. If I had let the promotional period expire, I probably would have owed another $400 or so. Fortunately, I paid attention to the fine print and was careful to have it completely paid off a few months in advance.
That doesn't make it not an anti-trust issue. It's an anti-trust issue because Amazon has outsized power in the e-book market, and if Amazon were able to negotiate a discount from Hachette, then that would likely be a discount that other vendors could not get, making it harder for other e-book vendors to compete with Amazon.
The Amazon-Hachette deal is a completely different situation. Amazon is using its market power to strong-arm Hachette into providing lower prices to Amazon than Hachette offers to other resellers. This is a classic case of collusion, and should be stopped on anti-trust grounds.
The security key won't respond if it doesn't receive the right message from the website. Some detail here: http://fidoalliance.org/specs/... (See section 6, page 11)
1. The disparity remains even after correcting for career differences. Women within the same career make substantially less, in virtually every career.
2. The differences in careers between men and women are also a result of sexism. So the headline number of 70 cents on the dollar is the correct one to use.
That article states explicitly that women are the majority of domestic violence victims. It's just trying to state that men are more common victims than is frequently believed. Which makes sense. But women still make up a very disproportionate fraction of injuries and murders in domestic violence.
See here for some less-skewed statistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
In particular: "A Canadian study showed that 7% of women and 6% of men were abused by their current or former partners, but female victims of spousal violence were more than twice as likely to be injured as male victims, three times more likely to fear for their life, twice as likely to be stalked, and twice as likely to experience more than ten incidents of violence."
So yeah, you can twist the numbers to make it look as if men are the victims here. While some are, most are not.
What is your evidence for this truly absurd claim?
If there was actual harm caused by failing to hire white men, then sure, it would make sense for the government to get involved. If, say, the white men who were hired were harassed or had their careers stunted, that would be a different matter. But if we're just talking about hiring practices, then there is precisely zero harm caused, because said white men have a much higher chance of getting hired in general.
I don't really see why. If Infosys is being discriminatory, the non-Indian workers should console themselves that they have significantly better prospects at 99+% of American companies than Indians do. The US government should be focused on claims made by marginalized groups, not worrying about the tiny fraction of cases where white men are discriminated against.
Right. This is a truly ridiculous conclusion. It's also completely at odds with the current data which suggest that transforming developed economies to renewable energy won't be very expensive at all: if it won't be that expensive to transition developed economies, then it's probably going to be cheaper for developing economies to expand their energy footprint through renewable resources than it would be for them to try to just use fossil fuels.
It would be pretty trivial for security personnel to give people access who shouldn't have access. They themselves may not know enough to release proprietary information, but they could open the door for somebody else to do so. So yes, it is important that the security be decently-paid and have good job satisfaction. Otherwise they become an easy avenue for access for anybody that wants it.
This isn't just about the government invading peoples' rights. This is also about basic data security.
These days, people often carry quite a lot of sensitive information on their phones (e.g. sensitive pictures). If the contents of the phone are not encrypted, then anybody who gets their hands on the phone can access that information. This is extremely unsafe. I could easily imagine somebody building small, hand-held device which will plug into an iOS or Android phone and download its contents within a minute or two (such devices may already exist, I don't know, I haven't looked). All you'd need is for somebody to leave their phone unattended for a short time, and all of their data could be lost.
So what the FBI is really asking here is for people to never be safe with their data. They're not just asking for the ability to look at your information, if they were to be listened to, your information wouldn't be safe from anybody else either.
His statements really have nothing to do with communism. His statements were authoritarian, which is a different beast.
Looks like the plaintiff in the case is one David Elliott, who owns the domains "googleDonaldTrump.com" and "googlegaycruises.com" (maybe others as well? I don't know...). Getting rid of spam URL's like these should improve the overall Internet.
1. Rapes in prisons hardly factor into the daily lives of people outside of prisons. Women in prisons face a far, far higher chance of being raped than men in prisons.
2. Women are approximately three times more likely to be on the receiving end of intimate partner violence, according to this link.
3. Black people are far, far more likely to be convicted of the same crime than white people, so it isn't at all clear that they are more violent in actuality.
How about, "More than their percent in the population," which in this case would be about 50%. Women face injury and death in far, far higher numbers at the hands of men than the reverse. They also face rape at the hands of men in far, far higher numbers than the reverse. And when they post online, they face threats of rape in far, far higher numbers than men do.
So, you think it's extreme to suggest that women are people who deserve fair treatment? Who shouldn't have to deal disproportionately with violence and rape, and threats of the same?
Indeed. The tone of the article was seriously grating. Open source is, I think, good for the industry as a whole. It's also good for consumers. But it is not unambiguously good for every individual software company.
I'd really like it if we could get some government regulation to promote more open source software, but saying, "This one guy I know was really really successful using open source!" in no way means that every business will be similarly successful.
Obtaining observations that are close enough to the event horizon for this theoretical model to make a difference are really really difficult to perform. For instance, our current best estimates for the radius of the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy are only able to nail it down to smaller than five and a half times the Schwarzschild radius. So I'm pretty sure that this model is well within current observational limits.
It probably won't be long, however, before we have observations that can distinguish between a Schwarzschild-radius black hole and this new model of a black hole.
Electrolysis isn't economically feasible. It just takes too much energy.
In principle, this is possible. In practice? I have no faith that it will actually be done.