Some random people on twitter makes outrageous claims, and that means that science is broken?
As for string theory, I don't get why it is considered science, but a lot of people more knowledgeable in the field than me thinks it is, so I would prefer to wait and see where it ends up.
Occam's razor is a guide, not an iron law. If it was an iron law, we would probably be using the TeVeS theory of gravity and leave the search for "dark matter & dark energy" (supposedly the matter and energy that makes up all but a tiny fraction of the Universe despite never really being seen) to compete for funding with the search for eluminiferous Ether.
So, since Gödel's theorem is relevant, science must somehow be an axiomatic system that is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. Weird, I thought it was all about observations, hypotheses and testing.
Heavy things are good at blocking photons, as photons interact most strongly with electrons (highest charge/mass ratio). The amount of electrons in a substance is roughly proportional to its weight (one electron for each proton, one to two neutrons per proton in normal substances). So, X-rays and gamma-rays are blocked better by heavy substances. The state of the electrons doesn't matter much, so superconductivity won't make much of a change.
Radiation consisting of heavier particles, such as protons or nuclei, which are most abundant in space, are a different story. In most cases (barring neutron radiation), they lose their energy in elastic scattering. The effect is largest if the two bodies have roughly the same mass. Electrons are far too light, heavy nuclei (e.g. lead) are too heavy. Light nuclei, such as hydrogen or carbon, are perfect.
That depends on your definition of "existence". If there are no way in which the invisible leprechauns in the server room can ever interfere with anything we can observe, can they be said to exist? Why? If God ever interferes with anything we can observe, we can test for his existence, so if we have no way to prove or disprove his existence, he is in the same category as the invisible leprechauns.
Note that this is half-way to claiming that there is no electrons, only clicks in my Geiger counter. Which is a consistent position.
Is that number corrected for difference of education and experience? And how much of the remaining difference can be explained by women being less present on the work place, due to maternity leave and taking care of sick children, which is still very much something women takes care of?
If that is the cause of (much of) the gender gap, does that make women under-privileged? I don't know if I would call it that, but it is a problem that every women pays for benefits for the average woman.
What do we do about this part of the problem? I can see three possible solutions:
1. Make the total workplace presence of an average man and an average woman closer. This would more or less have to include earmarking part of the maternity leave to men (well, making it Paternity leave).
2. Set up some sort of compensation for employers. This is problematic, as calculating the exact cost of one employee leaving for 6 months is difficult. It would also have to be government run, which would make it a hard sell (in the US, at least).
3. Make it legal* and standard to include clauses for pregnancy in contracts. That way, the employer can better estimate the long time value of each employee. However, this would lead to women being fired for breach of contract because they became pregnant when they had signed a contract not to, which would make it a hard sell.
* I assume it is illegal to make that kind of contracts in the US now, but I don't know. It is illegal where I live.
He-mu-e will probably be a bit larger than He, as the muon is heavier than the electron and resides closer to the nucleus, shielding the charge better.
No, Kg is a measure of mass and should not change with local g.
And, as sibling post points out, counting 50 thousand billion billion atoms is a chore. But efforts in that direction is being made (based on X-ray diffraction of silicon spheres, last I heard).
In those days a circle was divided into 366 degrees rather than 360 which matches the number of days in a year. The ancient clock system used then was more accurate than what we use today as well as the calender. Their system avoided the "leap year"
Right, so how do you get a whole number of days in a year when a year is 365.256... days?
*reads rest of comment* Megalithic inch? Wait a moment *googles* Ah, filed under pseudoscience. Never mind, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.
Although it is clearly not supercritical (existence of liquid nitrogen @ room pressure), it might just be what matters: good enough.
That would be the triple point, wouldn't it? Liquid oxygen certainly exists at room pressure (it condenses on containers of liquid nitrogen), and liquid CO2 doesn't, even though room temperature is below the critical point of CO2.
It would be vastly more efficient for me to shoot my neighbor and take his food, than have to go to work every day to earn my food. It would be vastly advantageous to me to run around raping women, than having to spend the time and resources to woo one in the traditional way.[...]It is more efficient to lay off 90% of my workforce, than to pay them a living wage.
So, cancelling a legal contract is morally equivalent to rape and murder? And you call the corporations sociopaths?
I can't find my textbook in physical chemistry (Atkins) right now, but I'm pretty sure they were defined as I did above. Of course, the need for what I called a closed system is greater in physical chemistry than it is in engineering, so perhaps there are just different definitions in different fields. That would be really annoying, though.
What you are describing is an isolated system, a system that neither exchanges matter nor energy with the surroundings. A closed system would be one that does not exchange matter with the surroundings. The earth is nearly a closed system, but definitely not an isolated system.
However, as we are talking about energy, it doesn't really matter if the earth is a closed system, so assuming that the GPP meant isolated system is not a bad assumption.
That isn't FB's fault, the people who pay for those adds have chosen to also have them shown to people who are listed as "in a relationship". Either they have overlooked that possibility, or there are money to be made from soliciting dating sites (or "dating sites", depending on the nature of the ads) to people in a relationship.
And this is exactly what I mean by conceited play on words: "they're not applications... they're apps, right?". No, wrong, they are applications that run on iOS. The definition of application doesn't say that it has to be not silly, or do more than one thing. As I said, I understand why Jobs would say that, but that doesn't make it true.
I'm not arguing against (or for) Apple in this case, App Store might and might not be too generic for it to be a trade mark, and I certainly don't want to make that distinction. But to claim that app is a new word coined by Steve Jobs? The concept "killer app" easily pre-dates the App Store.
And, of course, the logical progression is the o-prefix, followed by u-prefix. The y-prefix will only be used sometimes. Hey, the engineers are ahead of the curve, what with their o-rings.
Wait, you're not a Poe? I saw your other reply in this thread and thought "Nobody would actually believe that argument, how subtle, and nearly believable, well played".
Just because somebody claims that something is one way doesn't make it true, "App Store" is clearly derived from expressions like "killer app", though I can understand why Jobs would want to make the counterargument (but not why anybody would see it as more than a conceited play on words).
Not if the UK doesn't extradite people to possible torture of death sentence, and Sweden do. I can't imagine that being the case, but that would be needed for the lawyers argument to hold water (figuring out whether Sweden having insane extradition treaties or the lawyers bullshitting is most probable is left as an exercise for the reader).
They probably wouldn't, but a agreement could probably be made, that Sweden would not extradite said person to US in return for getting their hands on him (IANAL, I don't know if extradition treatise allow for such an exception).
Copyright is a limitation to the right to freedom of speech, if you see any such limitations to basic rights as unethical, copyright is unethical. Personally, I don't, but it is a logically consistent position.
The latter is definitely something that could bring about political change if they need the trade and will not get it unless they change their ways.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work. I think (but will be glad to be told otherwise) that the only example of embargoes effecting a regime change is South Africa, and that was more of a moral effect than an materialistic effect (the apartheid regime saw themselves as a part of the western world, so being embargoed by the western world was quite a blow to their self image).
This is not what happens. I live in Denmark, where people in general is not in danger of starving or being homeless. This does not make people more active, creative or interested in improving their own surroundings. In general, humans are lazy, and if their basic needs are met without them needing to do anything, most will not do anything. And then there is the artistic class, which, when the state pays them, seems to be more interested in pointing fingers at how bad the average citizen is then with actually improving anything.
That was not my point, and, indeed, I ended by stating that that was not what I was talking about. You stated that:
No value is added, only value extracted from a system.
I stated that that was not the case, value was added, but that I did not know how much.
On another note, I did not state that liquidity was the added value, I stated that price correction was the added value. IIUC (and I might not), liquidity makes the market work better by insuring that assets can always be bought and sold, and price correction makes the market work better by ensuring that people use the resources in most efficient way (only efficient for effects accounted for in the marketplace, this is where externalities come in). I would assume that price correction was more valuable than liquidity, as the former actually modifies peoples behaviour, but that might be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Science is already well past that point. String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end? Some respond to Japan earthquake by pointing to global warming (Global warming - is there anything it can't do?)
Some random people on twitter makes outrageous claims, and that means that science is broken?
As for string theory, I don't get why it is considered science, but a lot of people more knowledgeable in the field than me thinks it is, so I would prefer to wait and see where it ends up.
Occam's razor is a guide, not an iron law. If it was an iron law, we would probably be using the TeVeS theory of gravity and leave the search for "dark matter & dark energy" (supposedly the matter and energy that makes up all but a tiny fraction of the Universe despite never really being seen) to compete for funding with the search for eluminiferous Ether.
TeVeS? The theory that doesn't explain all of the data, and where even it's proponents agree that dark matter is still needed?
Moreover, there are limits to what can be known, and what is provable. Godel's incompleteness theorems
So, since Gödel's theorem is relevant, science must somehow be an axiomatic system that is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. Weird, I thought it was all about observations, hypotheses and testing.
Heavy things are good at blocking photons, as photons interact most strongly with electrons (highest charge/mass ratio). The amount of electrons in a substance is roughly proportional to its weight (one electron for each proton, one to two neutrons per proton in normal substances). So, X-rays and gamma-rays are blocked better by heavy substances. The state of the electrons doesn't matter much, so superconductivity won't make much of a change.
Radiation consisting of heavier particles, such as protons or nuclei, which are most abundant in space, are a different story. In most cases (barring neutron radiation), they lose their energy in elastic scattering. The effect is largest if the two bodies have roughly the same mass. Electrons are far too light, heavy nuclei (e.g. lead) are too heavy. Light nuclei, such as hydrogen or carbon, are perfect.
That depends on your definition of "existence". If there are no way in which the invisible leprechauns in the server room can ever interfere with anything we can observe, can they be said to exist? Why?
If God ever interferes with anything we can observe, we can test for his existence, so if we have no way to prove or disprove his existence, he is in the same category as the invisible leprechauns.
Note that this is half-way to claiming that there is no electrons, only clicks in my Geiger counter. Which is a consistent position.
Is that number corrected for difference of education and experience? And how much of the remaining difference can be explained by women being less present on the work place, due to maternity leave and taking care of sick children, which is still very much something women takes care of?
If that is the cause of (much of) the gender gap, does that make women under-privileged? I don't know if I would call it that, but it is a problem that every women pays for benefits for the average woman.
What do we do about this part of the problem? I can see three possible solutions:
1. Make the total workplace presence of an average man and an average woman closer. This would more or less have to include earmarking part of the maternity leave to men (well, making it Paternity leave).
2. Set up some sort of compensation for employers. This is problematic, as calculating the exact cost of one employee leaving for 6 months is difficult. It would also have to be government run, which would make it a hard sell (in the US, at least).
3. Make it legal* and standard to include clauses for pregnancy in contracts. That way, the employer can better estimate the long time value of each employee. However, this would lead to women being fired for breach of contract because they became pregnant when they had signed a contract not to, which would make it a hard sell.
* I assume it is illegal to make that kind of contracts in the US now, but I don't know. It is illegal where I live.
Actually, He is much smaller than H http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius#Calculated_atomic_radii
He-mu-e will probably be a bit larger than He, as the muon is heavier than the electron and resides closer to the nucleus, shielding the charge better.
No, Kg is a measure of mass and should not change with local g.
And, as sibling post points out, counting 50 thousand billion billion atoms is a chore. But efforts in that direction is being made (based on X-ray diffraction of silicon spheres, last I heard).
In those days a circle was divided into 366 degrees rather than 360 which matches the number of days in a year. The ancient clock system used then was more accurate than what we use today as well as the calender. Their system avoided the "leap year"
Right, so how do you get a whole number of days in a year when a year is 365.256... days?
*reads rest of comment*
Megalithic inch? Wait a moment *googles* Ah, filed under pseudoscience.
Never mind, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.
I don't see them either, and there is a space between your colons and your full stops.
Although it is clearly not supercritical (existence of liquid nitrogen @ room pressure), it might just be what matters: good enough.
That would be the triple point, wouldn't it? Liquid oxygen certainly exists at room pressure (it condenses on containers of liquid nitrogen), and liquid CO2 doesn't, even though room temperature is below the critical point of CO2.
It would be vastly more efficient for me to shoot my neighbor and take his food, than have to go to work every day to earn my food. It would be vastly advantageous to me to run around raping women, than having to spend the time and resources to woo one in the traditional way.[...]It is more efficient to lay off 90% of my workforce, than to pay them a living wage.
So, cancelling a legal contract is morally equivalent to rape and murder? And you call the corporations sociopaths?
I can't find my textbook in physical chemistry (Atkins) right now, but I'm pretty sure they were defined as I did above. Of course, the need for what I called a closed system is greater in physical chemistry than it is in engineering, so perhaps there are just different definitions in different fields. That would be really annoying, though.
What you are describing is an isolated system, a system that neither exchanges matter nor energy with the surroundings. A closed system would be one that does not exchange matter with the surroundings. The earth is nearly a closed system, but definitely not an isolated system.
However, as we are talking about energy, it doesn't really matter if the earth is a closed system, so assuming that the GPP meant isolated system is not a bad assumption.
You forgot the http:/// (**)in front of the link. If it is not there (and, IIRC, the adress does not start with www.), slashcode assumes it is an internal link.
href="en.wikipedia.org"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org"
href="www.wikipedia.org"
Yup, www.* also works, but en.* only works with http://en./
(**) should only be with two slashes, but slashcode thinks it is a link
That isn't FB's fault, the people who pay for those adds have chosen to also have them shown to people who are listed as "in a relationship". Either they have overlooked that possibility, or there are money to be made from soliciting dating sites (or "dating sites", depending on the nature of the ads) to people in a relationship.
And this is exactly what I mean by conceited play on words: "they're not applications... they're apps, right?". No, wrong, they are applications that run on iOS. The definition of application doesn't say that it has to be not silly, or do more than one thing. As I said, I understand why Jobs would say that, but that doesn't make it true.
Hey, great picture :-)
I'm not arguing against (or for) Apple in this case, App Store might and might not be too generic for it to be a trade mark, and I certainly don't want to make that distinction. But to claim that app is a new word coined by Steve Jobs? The concept "killer app" easily pre-dates the App Store.
And, of course, the logical progression is the o-prefix, followed by u-prefix. The y-prefix will only be used sometimes. Hey, the engineers are ahead of the curve, what with their o-rings.
Wait, you're not a Poe? I saw your other reply in this thread and thought "Nobody would actually believe that argument, how subtle, and nearly believable, well played".
Just because somebody claims that something is one way doesn't make it true, "App Store" is clearly derived from expressions like "killer app", though I can understand why Jobs would want to make the counterargument (but not why anybody would see it as more than a conceited play on words).
Not if the UK doesn't extradite people to possible torture of death sentence, and Sweden do. I can't imagine that being the case, but that would be needed for the lawyers argument to hold water (figuring out whether Sweden having insane extradition treaties or the lawyers bullshitting is most probable is left as an exercise for the reader).
They probably wouldn't, but a agreement could probably be made, that Sweden would not extradite said person to US in return for getting their hands on him (IANAL, I don't know if extradition treatise allow for such an exception).
Copyright is a limitation to the right to freedom of speech, if you see any such limitations to basic rights as unethical, copyright is unethical. Personally, I don't, but it is a logically consistent position.
The latter is definitely something that could bring about political change if they need the trade and will not get it unless they change their ways.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work. I think (but will be glad to be told otherwise) that the only example of embargoes effecting a regime change is South Africa, and that was more of a moral effect than an materialistic effect (the apartheid regime saw themselves as a part of the western world, so being embargoed by the western world was quite a blow to their self image).
This is not what happens. I live in Denmark, where people in general is not in danger of starving or being homeless. This does not make people more active, creative or interested in improving their own surroundings. In general, humans are lazy, and if their basic needs are met without them needing to do anything, most will not do anything. And then there is the artistic class, which, when the state pays them, seems to be more interested in pointing fingers at how bad the average citizen is then with actually improving anything.
No value is added, only value extracted from a system.
I stated that that was not the case, value was added, but that I did not know how much.
On another note, I did not state that liquidity was the added value, I stated that price correction was the added value. IIUC (and I might not), liquidity makes the market work better by insuring that assets can always be bought and sold, and price correction makes the market work better by ensuring that people use the resources in most efficient way (only efficient for effects accounted for in the marketplace, this is where externalities come in). I would assume that price correction was more valuable than liquidity, as the former actually modifies peoples behaviour, but that might be wrong.