>If you release convicts randomly, you will have to deal with your logical consequence. If you'd only release in doubtful cases (better yet, don't convict in doubtful cases), the percentage of released/not convicted criminals would be negligible.
I think this is the crux of the matter: What are the doubtful cases? The ones where there is a 10% chance that the person is innocent? A 1% chance? 0.01%? Or, to put it another way, how many wrongly convicted should we accept per guilty person going free? There is no way of ever being 100% sure of anything, so if we have to make sure that we never convict anyone wrongfully, we can never convict anybody.
With CAES, all the output can be stored until needed, as long as there are no "leaks" in the underground cavern, and the rate of pressure loss
isn't too high.
Not all of it. Gas compresion heats up the gas, and if that heat escapes before the gas is decompressed, usable energy is wasted. AFAIK, this is the reason why gas compression is not normally use for storing energy. It would be interesing to know how/if they avoid this problem, but the best way to check that is RingTFA, and there is no way in hell I am going to do that.
The European Parliament have been pretty stubborn about such things before, e.g. refusing to accept the entire commission because of one or two unacceptable elements.
Aren't you talking about the European Parliament? They are directly elected from the countries, and they are the ones who rejected ACTA. The commission, on the other hand, is picked by the governments of the individual countries (IIRC), which makes them two steps removed from direct elections. Much of the politics of EU for the last half decade or so has been the parliament wrestling power from the commission and bureacrats.
Do you mean ACTA? In that case, it was the European Parliament that that rejected that. Apparantly as a part of their continued effort to wrestle power from the Commission.
Even laser beams spread out. To hit a small target from geostationary orbit would require a really large satellite. It gets better with bigger targets, but only if you also allow for a big satellite.
The idea of (color-)charged force mediators is weird, I keep forgetting it.
My brain really wants the dipole analogy to hold up, to the point where I keep wondering whether dipole-dipole interactions can be described with massive pseudo-particles.
Well, only the beta decay, but yes, that must have been what I had heard about. And then extrapolated to the residual strong force, which is also short range, as you write.
This has an analog in the electromagnetic force, where dipole-dipole interactions has much shorter range than ion-ion interactions. IIRC, they fall of proportional to the fourth power of the distance in stead of the second. I have no idea whether the phenomenons are truly analogous, though.
I see. That is interesting, and kind of mind-blowing. I thought forces with massive bosons had shorter reaches, decaying faster than the square of the distance, but that must be wrong.
It shouldn't have, but this is MS land, don't assume good coding practises. You are lucky if you can find out why it suddenly decided to change the margins.
Linux users will have to purchase M$ (copyrighted?) keys to put Linux on their own PCs.
They shouldn't be copyrightable, as they are not the result of creative work, but are random. Just like the HD-DVD code should not have been copyrightable. Whether "should" will have any effect on "are" is another problem.
Magnetite is an iron oxide. Iron comes a a premium for life (which is why we are so efficient at keeping what we have in our bodies), but the fish wouldn't get long without hemoglobin in their blood, so they must have a supply of iron.
I get that. What I don't get is: If it takes energy to remove quarks from one another, why does nucleons have higher masses than the sum of the masses of the quarks? From E=mc^2, I would assume that the heavier state had the higher potential energy, so that a higher-mass state cannot be a bound state. Why is this not the case for quarks?
As sibling post said, it is not about the lens, or even the shutter, as the article says. Think of of it as a very fast flash in a dark room. I have no idea what they are talking about with the optical microscope, I don't see how they should have an inherent speed.
It's called state-dependent learning. Basically, it is easier to recall (or do) things when your are in the same state as when your learnt them. So when you have mostly been playing dart while being drunk, you are better at it when you are drunk. It is also a great excuse biologists use to get "getting rats drunk" past the ethical review board.
They do? In all countries? In Denmark, I keep seing commercials for companies offering to repair the cracked screen. Wierd, but perhaps people just assume they have to pay for it.
On a side note, it doesn't seem to me like "higher sales" was the major factor in design decisions for Apple in the Jobs era. "Fitting with Jobs vision" was more important. You could argue that that would lead to higher sales, but it definately seems to have been a derivative effect.
The edge of glass screens is by far the most fragile part, and a crack here will crack the entire screen. The solution is known to anyone who designs or tests phones: Have the chassis extend just a tiny bit over the edge of the glass, so that the edge never hits the surface when the phone is dropped. The iPhone is not designed this way, and as a result, if you drop it wrong, the glass will crack. It has nothing to do with the surface it hits, wood can crack it. It is not a matter of how many scratches is gets, either the glass cracks or it doesn't. It is simply a matter of testing the phone properly. Drop a thousand phones randomly, and check how many has cracked screens. This proportion will be higher for iPhones than for other phones. It might look prettier than it would have if it was the other way. Whether that outweighs the higher chance of a cracked screen is up to you.
Yes, we need something that has an enormous mass within a very small volume to explain the orbits of stars close to the center. Nothing really fits this apart from a black hole. If dark matter could obtain that density, it would all clump together in the center of galaxies, and wouldn't explain the rotational curves of galaxies.
If you cannot use the present to determine the past, then how could you know what the decay rates of radioactive isotopes were 4 billion years ago?
The fact is, no one knows, and so we just assume that because our measurements over the past couple hundred years show very little variation, it must have never varied.
If you cannot use the present to determine the past, how do you know that our measurements over the past couple of hundred years have shown very little variation? Because it is written down? But the text is in the present, and so cannot be used to determine the past. If you cannot use the present to determine the past, how do you know that yesterday existed? You have memories, but they are in in the present, and so cannot be used to determine the past. Assuming that we can use the present to determine the past is assuming that the world makes sense, which isn't even really an assumption of science (it is tested by every experiment, and even by everybody all the time).
When we don't know something, we assume our model is true, and look for ways to explain what we can see based on the current model.
You are conflating two quite different kinds of assumptions here: The kind you talked about in GGPP (and thus the kind I talked about in GPP) is a priori assumptions, which cannot be tested in the framework. It simply doesn't make any sense to test them, as the framework is based upon them. Creationism has them, science doesn't really. The kind you mention in PP is closer to the assumptions made in proof by contradiction, i.e., let's see what would happen if X was true. They are needed for any prediction, so science is full of them.
Making assumptions you never test (a priori assumptions) is not science, making predictions (the second kind of assumptions) is.
A link to Natural News and one to The Atlantic? Really? And what do you suppose that proves? Except that some people have dreamt up some link, but couldn't back it up enough to get it into anything that resembles a credible news source?
Slashdot Mirror
>If you release convicts randomly, you will have to deal with your logical consequence. If you'd only release in doubtful cases (better yet, don't convict in doubtful cases), the percentage of released/not convicted criminals would be negligible.
I think this is the crux of the matter: What are the doubtful cases? The ones where there is a 10% chance that the person is innocent? A 1% chance? 0.01%? Or, to put it another way, how many wrongly convicted should we accept per guilty person going free? There is no way of ever being 100% sure of anything, so if we have to make sure that we never convict anyone wrongfully, we can never convict anybody.
With CAES, all the output can be stored until needed, as long as there are no "leaks" in the underground cavern, and the rate of pressure loss isn't too high.
Not all of it. Gas compresion heats up the gas, and if that heat escapes before the gas is decompressed, usable energy is wasted. AFAIK, this is the reason why gas compression is not normally use for storing energy. It would be interesing to know how/if they avoid this problem, but the best way to check that is RingTFA, and there is no way in hell I am going to do that.
The European Parliament have been pretty stubborn about such things before, e.g. refusing to accept the entire commission because of one or two unacceptable elements.
Aren't you talking about the European Parliament? They are directly elected from the countries, and they are the ones who rejected ACTA. The commission, on the other hand, is picked by the governments of the individual countries (IIRC), which makes them two steps removed from direct elections. Much of the politics of EU for the last half decade or so has been the parliament wrestling power from the commission and bureacrats.
Do you mean ACTA? In that case, it was the European Parliament that that rejected that. Apparantly as a part of their continued effort to wrestle power from the Commission.
Even laser beams spread out. To hit a small target from geostationary orbit would require a really large satellite. It gets better with bigger targets, but only if you also allow for a big satellite.
The idea of (color-)charged force mediators is weird, I keep forgetting it.
My brain really wants the dipole analogy to hold up, to the point where I keep wondering whether dipole-dipole interactions can be described with massive pseudo-particles.
Well, only the beta decay, but yes, that must have been what I had heard about. And then extrapolated to the residual strong force, which is also short range, as you write.
This has an analog in the electromagnetic force, where dipole-dipole interactions has much shorter range than ion-ion interactions. IIRC, they fall of proportional to the fourth power of the distance in stead of the second. I have no idea whether the phenomenons are truly analogous, though.
I see. That is interesting, and kind of mind-blowing. I thought forces with massive bosons had shorter reaches, decaying faster than the square of the distance, but that must be wrong.
It shouldn't have, but this is MS land, don't assume good coding practises. You are lucky if you can find out why it suddenly decided to change the margins.
To be fair, this is not much better between different versions of Office.
Linux users will have to purchase M$ (copyrighted?) keys to put Linux on their own PCs.
They shouldn't be copyrightable, as they are not the result of creative work, but are random. Just like the HD-DVD code should not have been copyrightable. Whether "should" will have any effect on "are" is another problem.
Magnetite is an iron oxide. Iron comes a a premium for life (which is why we are so efficient at keeping what we have in our bodies), but the fish wouldn't get long without hemoglobin in their blood, so they must have a supply of iron.
I get that. What I don't get is: If it takes energy to remove quarks from one another, why does nucleons have higher masses than the sum of the masses of the quarks? From E=mc^2, I would assume that the heavier state had the higher potential energy, so that a higher-mass state cannot be a bound state. Why is this not the case for quarks?
As sibling post said, it is not about the lens, or even the shutter, as the article says. Think of of it as a very fast flash in a dark room. I have no idea what they are talking about with the optical microscope, I don't see how they should have an inherent speed.
It's called state-dependent learning. Basically, it is easier to recall (or do) things when your are in the same state as when your learnt them. So when you have mostly been playing dart while being drunk, you are better at it when you are drunk. It is also a great excuse biologists use to get "getting rats drunk" past the ethical review board.
They do? In all countries? In Denmark, I keep seing commercials for companies offering to repair the cracked screen. Wierd, but perhaps people just assume they have to pay for it.
On a side note, it doesn't seem to me like "higher sales" was the major factor in design decisions for Apple in the Jobs era. "Fitting with Jobs vision" was more important. You could argue that that would lead to higher sales, but it definately seems to have been a derivative effect.
The edge of glass screens is by far the most fragile part, and a crack here will crack the entire screen. The solution is known to anyone who designs or tests phones: Have the chassis extend just a tiny bit over the edge of the glass, so that the edge never hits the surface when the phone is dropped. The iPhone is not designed this way, and as a result, if you drop it wrong, the glass will crack. It has nothing to do with the surface it hits, wood can crack it. It is not a matter of how many scratches is gets, either the glass cracks or it doesn't. It is simply a matter of testing the phone properly. Drop a thousand phones randomly, and check how many has cracked screens. This proportion will be higher for iPhones than for other phones. It might look prettier than it would have if it was the other way. Whether that outweighs the higher chance of a cracked screen is up to you.
Just to pick a nit (as I am in no way qualified to comment on the rest), you need to remember the electrons when calculating atomic masses
. For example, a proton's mass is 938 MeV but its two up quarks and single down quark only sum to (at most) 12.4 MeV.
Wouldn't that mean that the binding force of the nucleons were negative? And wouldn't that mean that they should fly apart?
The reason why Mercury's orbit is not Newtonian is the correction in the gravitational pull of the sun, not the velocity of the planet.
Yes, we need something that has an enormous mass within a very small volume to explain the orbits of stars close to the center. Nothing really fits this apart from a black hole. If dark matter could obtain that density, it would all clump together in the center of galaxies, and wouldn't explain the rotational curves of galaxies.
If you cannot use the present to determine the past, then how could you know what the decay rates of radioactive isotopes were 4 billion years ago? The fact is, no one knows, and so we just assume that because our measurements over the past couple hundred years show very little variation, it must have never varied.
If you cannot use the present to determine the past, how do you know that our measurements over the past couple of hundred years have shown very little variation? Because it is written down? But the text is in the present, and so cannot be used to determine the past. If you cannot use the present to determine the past, how do you know that yesterday existed? You have memories, but they are in in the present, and so cannot be used to determine the past. Assuming that we can use the present to determine the past is assuming that the world makes sense, which isn't even really an assumption of science (it is tested by every experiment, and even by everybody all the time).
When we don't know something, we assume our model is true, and look for ways to explain what we can see based on the current model.
You are conflating two quite different kinds of assumptions here: The kind you talked about in GGPP (and thus the kind I talked about in GPP) is a priori assumptions, which cannot be tested in the framework. It simply doesn't make any sense to test them, as the framework is based upon them. Creationism has them, science doesn't really. The kind you mention in PP is closer to the assumptions made in proof by contradiction, i.e., let's see what would happen if X was true. They are needed for any prediction, so science is full of them.
Making assumptions you never test (a priori assumptions) is not science, making predictions (the second kind of assumptions) is.
It's pronounced "Smarph-Ones", and it is used to described the people who are from Smarph.
A link to Natural News and one to The Atlantic? Really? And what do you suppose that proves? Except that some people have dreamt up some link, but couldn't back it up enough to get it into anything that resembles a credible news source?