The original poster posits a 1% accuracy. Now, your argument will be correct if that 1% is ad hoc. However, it does not have to be.
The way to go is to take data : say last 5 elections' ballots and then manually recount them to get an error rate. Then define this error rate as the "margin". Let's for convenient, say it's 1% with 99.99% confidence level (I am using standard "frequentist arguments" but it is not the best way, but will do for an illustration).
Now your argument about the difference between 1% and 1.0001% is no longer valid. Since statistically speaking, the difference is now significant. To put in other words : statistically it is not possible to "call" it either way if the margin is within 1% with 99.99% confidence. (Note the qualification "99.99 confidence"). But if the margin falls outside 1%, eg. 1.00001%, then the confidence is no longer 99.99% therefore a decision can be called.
Your Drunk Driving analogy is flawed because here it is an arbitrary margin, with a tenuous definition of "drunkeness" (i.e. how can one tell if a person is more "dangerous" with 0.08001% blood alcohol level than someone with 0.08%? since there is no clear line of division between "drunk" and "sober".). In an election, the line is clear : there is only two possibilities (win/lose).
I have no opinions regarding interpretation of statistics (i.e what is meant by "99.99% confidence") : controversy still rages. But the point is that there is a well-defined scientific way of going about doing these things. It's not fast and loose as you put it.
Years of organic chemistry and e&m won't buy you what they used to.
This is so much crap. Where is the supporting information?
You know, maybe you should go take a physical sciences course so you understand "quantitative analysis" instead of manipulating words ala Derrida with absolutely no content in it.
Well, in single mode fibres, light still bounces off the edges. (To be precise, in graded-index fibre optics, the light does not "bounces" but nicely do a sine wave through). So, it does not travel straight.
The different between single and multi mode fibre is the "mode". A mode basically means a frequency of light, so in single mode fibres we use monochromatic light ( I think it's 1550nm).
Most longhaul fibre optics are single mode, because the attenuation is much less (think multimode fibres not as optimized : losses as you described in your post). In single mode fibres, the losses are generally due to the fact that geometrical optics is just an approximation of the true nature of light.
I wasted a year of my life designing fibre optic networks. At least now I can show off my "knowledge" in/., so it's not a total waste.
In the not-so-ancient China, you are married off when you are 13 or 14. And have kids by 15.
I think this story is replicated many times through many other cultures : Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek etc..
Then came along Judeo-Christeo ethics, and there goes the neigbourhood.
You can say that out current cultural norms, of which the laws are based on, has the last say.
Not that that's anything bad of course : it's just a fact of life. If you want to whine about it, you had better start a new culture, or a new religion.
Lucasfilm gets a piece of the action, the parodoists gets recognition (come don't tell me these guys don't want that!).
For those who always think that big corporations have an agenda to be "helpful", those parodists (sp?) who don't want to take part can always do their own parody w/o Lucasfilm "rubberstamp". Which is not illegal of course.
You are arguing against one of the central result of one of the most active area of cosmology based on a single popular book written by someone who has no background training in hardcore physics. It's called appealing to authority, and here, it's false authority.
so it's the velocity, not the mass that does the damage. A small Ap11 booster at 50km/s would be a bout a nuke. Watch "Armageddon" for the effects of a nuke hitting a major city.
It is a general misconception that the BB gives a "momentum impulse" the causes the expansion of the universe. Expansio of the U is expansion of space itself, whicih has nothing to do with "total momentum" or things like that.
Also there is no "point zero" in a BB for the current "favourite" flat universe model. The idea of a BB "exploding from a point into void" is also false. In the current Omega=1 (i.e. asymtotically expanding) universe, there is not even a concept of a "single point", i.e. the Universe came into being as infinite space in the BB (hard to visualize, but true). The simple proof is that an Omega=1 U is an infinite U, so extrapolating infinite back a finite amount of time (i.e. the age of the Universe) will still lead to an infinite universe. So the Universe has no boundaries (a single point, on the other hand, has a one-dimensional boundary so to speak very loosely).
Now, to answer the question of the original poster :
Colliding galaxies are common place. During the early universe, purturbations in the density field "seeded" the universe, causing stars and galaxies to form. Some purturbations are larger than others, and those which is larger than the so called "Jeans Mass" will collapse to form objects in the universe, creating a local overdensity of mass whose gravitational effects overcome the inherent "expansion" of space. Thus, we see many so called "galaxy clusters" in space, of which Virgo is the closest. In such clusters, galaxies are gravitationally bounded to each other, and eventually will collide to form one gigantic galaxy. (Such gigantic galaxies which are >1000 times more massive the the Milky Way are called cD galaxies and are not uncommon.)
LIGO confirms that Einstein was right the same way that Radio Astronomy confirms that Maxwell was
right
Well. Maxwell was confirmed right not by radio astronomy, but by a zillion other experiments. (Radio astronomy did not come into play until the mid 20th century,pioneered by Jansky.) Maxwell did not proposed a theory that was comfirmed by experiments. He proposed a theory which successfully explain a phenomenon (E&M) that was at that time cobbled together by several separate theories.
Also LIGO did not detect gravity waves yet, so it confirmed nothing. Besides, ppl are pessimistic that LIGO will actually detect anything. (It was amazing that they manage to get the project funded with a "BIG IF" probability of success.)
For crazier experiments check out : LISA which plans to fly 6 spacecraft in formation!
And I am tax-paying, freedom-loving, Furriner!
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
I pay taxes to Uncle Sam, but get no vote. Tee hee.
But you just need one set of tools to do lots of splicing. A thermal splice machine costs >> 500 bux I think. About 20000 USD perhaps, but a good one with a good splicer one can splice up to 64 fibres per night. The 500 bux tool maybe a diamond cutter?!
Maybe you are talking about those "raw" terminators (which you stick in the end of a fibre to the connector), which is not so good. Good terminators should come with its own "tail" fibre properly terminated to the SC/FC-PC connector, and the splicer's job is to splice the "tail" fibre to the incoming fibre. This way, the splice loss/reflection loss is much less.
As an individual, you call in the cavalry! (i.e.your evil local service provider)
Well, splicing is time-consuming. But really cheap. (I spent a year of my life building fibre networks, and spent innumerable hours sitting with a bunch of guys splicing fibres....)
Yes, the article is hyperbole written by a media-type who does not understand the technology he/she is writing about.
More facts :
(a) Fibre optics is CHEAPER than copper. Why? Fiber optics is silicon (i.e. sand), copper is metal. Production of fibre is a well-developed process.
(b) Besides, most of the Capital in installing a urban COMMs network is not in cables, but what the industry jargon call "OSP", Outside-plant. Which is just plain old digging up roads, putting in ducts and manholes, and the putting the road back in pristine condition (NOT easy) again.
(c) Secondary cost is building repeater stations for long-haul FO cable trunks.
(d) The reason FO has not penetrated to the "last mile" (i.e. a fibre each into each home) is because the cost of fibre modems are prohibitively expensive. (Unlikes copper network, which works off electricity, FO works off light, which means a fast-repeating laser at both ends, which means pricey electronics.)
(e) One advantage of FO is that it enables implementation of SDH networks, where capacity is shared in a ring instead of wasted in a tree like PDH networks most POTS now run on.
This is sad. After all these years of nanotechnology, people are only starting to have department of nanotechnology.
And, this also seem like a trendy thing (Stanford Mech Eng dept is hiring Physicists to teach quantum mechanics to their grad students so they can do nanotech blalh blah.
The gauntlet was thrown down by Feynman years ago : read this.
(a) You are reading too much into the word "we". In fact, this said "we" also go to VCD stalls at night markets to buy said banned movies.
(b) You are also using a technique call "strawman" by posing the "we" above as a bunch of murderers+bla-blah. So much for your "logical and reasonable"-ness.
(c) I merely was stating certain facts of the "prudishness" of Malaysian Government. I laugh at this prudishness. But, instead, you make the judgement that I am condoning their actions. So much for your "logical....." (ditto)
(d) You concluded the Malaysians are "terrorized by criminals." While I agree that the Gov is not perfect and corrupt, I think your statement would fall under the fallacy called "slippery slope". So much for.....
(e) You keep invoking the concept of "Justice". However, I would like you to define "Justice".
Anyway, your rhetoric, and command of English is commendable.
Advice : Relax. Life's too short to get all wound up over/. posts!
(Oh yeah, this is certainly Flamebait, so Moderators are welcomed to -1 Flamebait, but I am having too much fun to be held back!:))
Slashdot Mirror
The original poster posits a 1% accuracy. Now, your argument will be correct if that 1% is ad hoc. However, it does not have to be.
The way to go is to take data : say last 5 elections' ballots and then manually recount them to get an error rate. Then define this error rate as the "margin". Let's for convenient, say it's 1% with 99.99% confidence level (I am using standard "frequentist arguments" but it is not the best way, but will do for an illustration).
Now your argument about the difference between 1% and 1.0001% is no longer valid. Since statistically speaking, the difference is now significant. To put in other words : statistically it is not possible to "call" it either way if the margin is within 1% with 99.99% confidence. (Note the qualification "99.99 confidence"). But if the margin falls outside 1%, eg. 1.00001%, then the confidence is no longer 99.99% therefore a decision can be called.
Your Drunk Driving analogy is flawed because here it is an arbitrary margin, with a tenuous definition of "drunkeness" (i.e. how can one tell if a person is more "dangerous" with 0.08001% blood alcohol level than someone with 0.08%? since there is no clear line of division between "drunk" and "sober".). In an election, the line is clear : there is only two possibilities (win/lose).
I have no opinions regarding interpretation of statistics (i.e what is meant by "99.99% confidence") : controversy still rages. But the point is that there is a well-defined scientific way of going about doing these things. It's not fast and loose as you put it.
Right.
SO that when one gets cut, the other takes over. The STM protocol happily can accomadate this.
Then again, building redundant transcontinental lines are not a trivial thing....
Years of organic chemistry and e&m won't buy you what they used to.
This is so much crap. Where is the supporting information?
You know, maybe you should go take a physical sciences course so you understand "quantitative analysis" instead of manipulating words ala Derrida with absolutely no content in it.
Well, in single mode fibres, light still bounces off the edges. (To be precise, in graded-index fibre optics, the light does not "bounces" but nicely do a sine wave through). So, it does not travel straight.
/., so it's not a total waste.
The different between single and multi mode fibre is the "mode". A mode basically means a frequency of light, so in single mode fibres we use monochromatic light ( I think it's 1550nm).
Most longhaul fibre optics are single mode, because the attenuation is much less (think multimode fibres not as optimized : losses as you described in your post). In single mode fibres, the losses are generally due to the fact that geometrical optics is just an approximation of the true nature of light.
I wasted a year of my life designing fibre optic networks. At least now I can show off my "knowledge" in
It's probably more amazing when you realize that :
(a) light travels slower in glass (fibre optics)
(b) it does not travel straight, but bounces off the edges of the fibre optics line.
In the not-so-ancient China, you are married off when you are 13 or 14. And have kids by 15.
I think this story is replicated many times through many other cultures : Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek etc..
Then came along Judeo-Christeo ethics, and there goes the neigbourhood.
You can say that out current cultural norms, of which the laws are based on, has the last say.
Not that that's anything bad of course : it's just a fact of life. If you want to whine about it, you had better start a new culture, or a new religion.
Lucasfilm gets a piece of the action, the parodoists gets recognition (come don't tell me these guys don't want that!).
For those who always think that big corporations have an agenda to be "helpful", those parodists (sp?) who don't want to take part can always do their own parody w/o Lucasfilm "rubberstamp". Which is not illegal of course.
You are arguing against one of the central result of one of the most active area of cosmology based on a single popular book written by someone who has no background training in hardcore physics. It's called appealing to authority, and here, it's false authority.
No. We just send a bunch of old geezers who couldn't get into the space program to ride the damned Ap11 booster back to the moon.
Energy = 1/2 *m* v^2
so it's the velocity, not the mass that does the damage. A small Ap11 booster at 50km/s would be a bout a nuke. Watch "Armageddon" for the effects of a nuke hitting a major city.
It is a general misconception that the BB gives a "momentum impulse" the causes the expansion of the universe. Expansio of the U is expansion of space itself, whicih has nothing to do with "total momentum" or things like that.
Also there is no "point zero" in a BB for the current "favourite" flat universe model. The idea of a BB "exploding from a point into void" is also false. In the current Omega=1 (i.e. asymtotically expanding) universe, there is not even a concept of a "single point", i.e. the Universe came into being as infinite space in the BB (hard to visualize, but true). The simple proof is that an Omega=1 U is an infinite U, so extrapolating infinite back a finite amount of time (i.e. the age of the Universe) will still lead to an infinite universe. So the Universe has no boundaries (a single point, on the other hand, has a one-dimensional boundary so to speak very loosely).
Now, to answer the question of the original poster :
Colliding galaxies are common place. During the early universe, purturbations in the density field "seeded" the universe, causing stars and galaxies to form. Some purturbations are larger than others, and those which is larger than the so called "Jeans Mass" will collapse to form objects in the universe, creating a local overdensity of mass whose gravitational effects overcome the inherent "expansion" of space. Thus, we see many so called "galaxy clusters" in space, of which Virgo is the closest. In such clusters, galaxies are gravitationally bounded to each other, and eventually will collide to form one gigantic galaxy. (Such gigantic galaxies which are >1000 times more massive the the Milky Way are called cD galaxies and are not uncommon.)
where is the speeling(sic) misteak?
Is a FP more valuable then a First PS?
Check out LISA .
LIGO confirms that Einstein was right the same way that Radio Astronomy confirms that Maxwell was right
Well. Maxwell was confirmed right not by radio astronomy, but by a zillion other experiments. (Radio astronomy did not come into play until the mid 20th century,pioneered by Jansky.) Maxwell did not proposed a theory that was comfirmed by experiments. He proposed a theory which successfully explain a phenomenon (E&M) that was at that time cobbled together by several separate theories.
Also LIGO did not detect gravity waves yet, so it confirmed nothing. Besides, ppl are pessimistic that LIGO will actually detect anything. (It was amazing that they manage to get the project funded with a "BIG IF" probability of success.)
For crazier experiments check out : LISA which plans to fly 6 spacecraft in formation!
I pay taxes to Uncle Sam, but get no vote. Tee hee.
Now that NEdit is /.-ed :
WELCOME TO THE BIGTIME!
But you just need one set of tools to do lots of splicing. A thermal splice machine costs >> 500 bux I think. About 20000 USD perhaps, but a good one with a good splicer one can splice up to 64 fibres per night. The 500 bux tool maybe a diamond cutter?!
Maybe you are talking about those "raw" terminators (which you stick in the end of a fibre to the connector), which is not so good. Good terminators should come with its own "tail" fibre properly terminated to the SC/FC-PC connector, and the splicer's job is to splice the "tail" fibre to the incoming fibre. This way, the splice loss/reflection loss is much less.
As an individual, you call in the cavalry! (i.e.your evil local service provider)
Well, splicing is time-consuming. But really cheap. (I spent a year of my life building fibre networks, and spent innumerable hours sitting with a bunch of guys splicing fibres....)
Yes, the article is hyperbole written by a media-type who does not understand the technology he/she is writing about.
More facts :
(a) Fibre optics is CHEAPER than copper. Why? Fiber optics is silicon (i.e. sand), copper is metal. Production of fibre is a well-developed process.
(b) Besides, most of the Capital in installing a urban COMMs network is not in cables, but what the industry jargon call "OSP", Outside-plant. Which is just plain old digging up roads, putting in ducts and manholes, and the putting the road back in pristine condition (NOT easy) again.
(c) Secondary cost is building repeater stations for long-haul FO cable trunks.
(d) The reason FO has not penetrated to the "last mile" (i.e. a fibre each into each home) is because the cost of fibre modems are prohibitively expensive. (Unlikes copper network, which works off electricity, FO works off light, which means a fast-repeating laser at both ends, which means pricey electronics.)
(e) One advantage of FO is that it enables implementation of SDH networks, where capacity is shared in a ring instead of wasted in a tree like PDH networks most POTS now run on.
Probably not. But, our skin will get nicely fried though.
It's gravity that keeps the atmospher intact, not the magnetic field.
This is sad. After all these years of nanotechnology, people are only starting to have department of nanotechnology.
And, this also seem like a trendy thing (Stanford Mech Eng dept is hiring Physicists to teach quantum mechanics to their grad students so they can do nanotech blalh blah.
The gauntlet was thrown down by Feynman years ago : read this.
(a) You are reading too much into the word "we". In fact, this said "we" also go to VCD stalls at night markets to buy said banned movies.
.....
/. posts!
:))
(b) You are also using a technique call "strawman" by posing the "we" above as a bunch of murderers+bla-blah. So much for your "logical and reasonable"-ness.
(c) I merely was stating certain facts of the "prudishness" of Malaysian Government. I laugh at this prudishness. But, instead, you make the judgement that I am condoning their actions. So much for your "logical....." (ditto)
(d) You concluded the Malaysians are "terrorized by criminals." While I agree that the Gov is not perfect and corrupt, I think your statement would fall under the fallacy called "slippery slope". So much for
(e) You keep invoking the concept of "Justice". However, I would like you to define "Justice".
Anyway, your rhetoric, and command of English is commendable.
Advice : Relax. Life's too short to get all wound up over
(Oh yeah, this is certainly Flamebait, so Moderators are welcomed to -1 Flamebait, but I am having too much fun to be held back!
Sorry, already being hired as an overworked, underpaid grad student. ;{