Wait, so you're saying a second is defined in terms of the Earth's rotation? Because, that's not constant, especially in these million year durations that cesium clocks are supposed to only lose a few seconds through. I was under the impression that 'second' was defined in terms of our most precise measurement device, which, up until now, has been cesium:
(taken from merriam-webster): "the base unit of time in the International System of Units that is equal to the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom
I throw Invader Zim into the same pool I throw Rocko's Modern Life, Ren & Stimpy, Sheep in the Big City and the Grim and Evil show in -- supposedly "adult" cartoons that just come off like college students' art projects.
Your list is perfect, but lose Grim and Evil, because it's just plain dumb. The rest are all that Nick ever had that was good, and Spongebob succeeded where Zim failed for only one reason: they pushed Spongebob from Day One. It was the SUPER NEW MEGA COOL NICKTOON. Zim never even had a static time slot. Johnen Vasquez, Joe Murray, John Kricfalusi(sp?), and whoever does Sheep in the Big City, they should all go to Cartoon Network, where they might at least find appreciation in Adult Swim. Then they can replace that "Home Movies" crap that's just The New Improved Doctor Katz, another show that didn't deserve network time.
On third thought, yes. It is. This *is* a method of forcing electrons to hold extra energy. The reason the new photons emitted don't disperse in random directions is because they're held in another laser. So yeah. This isn't a convenient storage medium for light. Take laser #2 off the crystal, and you've got a useless rock of yttrium.
Except that I'm wrong. That's how photons and electrons interact, yes, to answer your question. But it isn't the principle the crystals in question are taking advantage of. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you always, always, always read the fucking article before you post. That applies to the slashdot admin, too. Read a higher message off this thread for a working idea of how this stuff works.
Electrons absorb and emit photons when they change energy states. This crystal doesn't slow down light, it's just that it makes the electron hold the extra energy for a shit load of time, which isn't typical in the natural world. After that time, the electron emits a fresh photon and it's done again until it reaches the other side of the crystal. So light isn't "passing" through the crystal, per se. It's being absorbed by electrons, then the energy is being held, then it's being re-emitted as light again.
Ok, now that you've told us where the esteemed Lucasian professor stands, I want to say two things:
a)that's a bunch of crap; I hope you don't believe it. The anthropic principle always strikes me as a bit spurious. There's something about it which doesn't seem kosher, and that post illustrates my point. I mean really, saying "we must be the most advanced culture in existence" isn't an anthropic viewpoint, it's an anthropocentric viewpoint.
and
b)here's an equally-if-not-more-valid proof that shows the opposite:
Our galaxy contains about 200 billion stars. All our assumptions will be conservative, and thus the probabilities can likely be greater.
Assume that 10% of the 200 billion stars in the universe are yellow stars like Sol. Assume that 10% of these yellow stars have planets orbiting them. Assume that 10% of these planetary systems have planets like Earth. Assume that 10% of these earthlike planets have atmospheres capable of sustaining life. Assume that 10% of these atmospherically ideal planets actually have life on them in some form. Now assume that 10% of these planets harbor intelligent life.
Out of 200 billion stars, we still have 200,000 that fit the criteria.
Of course this doesn't imply at all that these 200,000 cultures will evolve even remotely in the same time period, but you said "no civilization exists (nor will ever exist) which is significantly more technically advanced than we are right now".
To make the same disclaimer: this isn't just my crackpot theory, it is a very VERY rough equation credited to astronomer Frank Drake of the U of Cal at Santa Cruz. George Wetherill of the Carnegie Institution of Washington places the odds better, using a computer simulation using the same rules of solar and planetary formation that the universe uses, with the benefit of accelerated time. He claims that Earth-type planets with Jupiter-type companions (to deflect most asteroids from the smaller inner planet) are quite common if the galaxy formed at all the way we believe it did. We've already found a whole bunch of extrasolar gas giants, and when our monitoring equipment gets better we might be able to see those Earth-sized inner planets.
Maybe it's a more rough approximation, but it beats anthropocentric bigotry.
This is just THIS MESSAGE encoded differently. I downloaded this about 9 months ago from a more obscure site. I wouldn't call it "new" given that age. The message in jpg form will be difficult for some to decipher, doubtless. They should at least update the Mersenne prime.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the Constitution outlines what the FEDERAL government can and cannot do. If you had ever read the 10th amendment, you'd know that:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Most importantly, the constitution certainly doesn't say that the government shall not compete with private business. In fact, competition is the only morally correct way I see for the government to attempt to regulate capitalism. It doesn't violate the principles of laissez-faire. CivNet would be a direct competitor of SBC, Ameritech, and any and all other ISP's in Chicagoland. Maybe then they will start offering some decent SDSL at a reasonable price, because they aren't doing that now. The only problem is that I can't believe the government won't try to shove some totally crazy terms of service down our throats to use their precious network. They have to do their part in the war against terrorism, after all. And everyone knows that using Kazaa makes you a terrorist.
I don't think it's fair to blame the user for not knowing that ".txt.pif" is a magic extension that can hurt their computer, or just to tell them "don't open email from someone you don't know". The fact of the matter is that it's wrong for your email client or your web browser to executed code from an unknown source, and the user should have to take positive steps (more than one) to execute such things. Microsoft's email tools are fundamentally broken, even to the point where they betray their supposed ease of use by requiring the user to puzzle over which emails are safe and which aren't.
Now, I'm conflicted here. On the one hand, yes, I do believe that such an email client is fundamentally flawed, and that the company deserves to be chastised for releasing such a thing. On the other hand, it IS fair to blame the user, because it's not NECESSARY for the user to know that *.txt.pif is a dangerous extension. It's simple: NEVER TOUCH AN ATTACHMENT FROM AN UNKNOWN SOURCE. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, AND DIDN'T ASK FOR IT, YOU *DON'T FUCKING NEED IT*. And it *IS* the marketing guy's job to know that. And the beancounter's job. And the job of anyone who deals with a computer every day. Computer literacy was a requirement to get the job. Now I'm not trying to say that these people ARE computer literate, but they really really REALLY *should* be. When *I* hire *you*, and *you* are using *my* equipment, and you run an attachment DESPITE THAT:
1. You never asked for it, and thus don't need it for anything.
2. You don't know for sure what it is or what it does.
3. I have told the managers to post notices and make sure everyone in the company understands that such a situation is potentially dangerous, and to exercise caution before curiousity.
then it is MOST DEFINATELY your fault, dumbass. You're fired. Get your shit and get out. Leave your access card with the security team at the main entrance. Sayonara. I don't take pity on you because you did something stupid, and you can't claim ignorance. It *IS* your job to know.
Perhaps there should be a clause similar to the impeachment proceedings stuff, except for congress. Passing unconstitutional laws sounds to me like "high crimes and misdemeanors". Only who would bring about the charges, and who would oversee the trial? That would get a little hairy.
Yes, I certainly have read all eight books (not counting Frank Herbert's Eye and I'd never read House Corrino), and I'm looking forward to the sequel to Chapterhouse that will finally end the series.
That you pretend to have read these books is amusing, since anyone who has read them wouldn't confuse their story lines with that of David Lynch's movie. They are unmistakeably different. The phrase "fold space" was not used by Herbert; it was invented by Lynch.
You would do well to actually read the books, instead of making trollish claims.
Because The Hobbit is a fundamentaly differnet story. It is not the prequel, it is a chidlrens book. It was designed and written as one, and thats what it is.
Just because the story isn't up to your standards doesn't mean it's a children's book. I doubt many children would read a book so long, without some sort of my-age character constantly getting into R. L. Stine-esque situations. Children read utter crap, and The Hobbit isn't utter crap. But I digress.
There's background information in The Hobbit that's necessary to understand the LOTR universe. Gandalf does (or should I say Tolkien LETS Gandalf do) a decent job recapping the whole Bilbo got the ring from Gollum part of the story... but anyone remember the part of Fellowship where Frodo, Aragorn, and crew find the petrified trolls? If you haven't read The Hobbit, you'd have NO idea what that's about. I'm not saying that's a particularly important part of the story, but little things like that complete the tale of Middle Earth. I'd much rather have a movie that covers the important background info, sort of a combination Hobbit/Silmarillion story. Is there going to be enough background story in the Fellowship movie so that everyone understands Saruman's motivations? His loyalties? What about the whole driving Sauron from Mirkwood thing? The crafting of the rings? What does it mean to be an Istari/Maiar/Valar? What is this long-dead empire that Aragorn intends to revive? What's the deal with Sauron? It might be nice to understand why he's doing what he's doing. Not just looking for the ring, but the whole deal. Why he's trying to destroy every damn thing.
They really should have released a good prequel before they did the LOTR movies. Both to test the waters, and to appease all the sticklers for accuracy. Plus it would have been another chance to show off all the neat effects, scenery, and sell more merchandise. Why did they let this opportunity pass them?
You're essentially right. Although the message (in the form of polarized photons) HAS travelled instantly from an arbitrary distance thanks to the magic of entangled photons, Bob can't determine the message unless he knows which way to orient his polarity detector. So, ironically, he needs to know the message before he can read the message. And to answer your question, I believe that entangled photons always have complimentary polarities.
Well if you read the article, you will see that light is being bounced off the object in question. This more or less explicitly states that direct observation is taking place, where "observation" is defined as bombarding an object with particles in order to learn something about it. The fact that these photons never reach human eyes is irrelevant. The fact that the photons are entangled with others somewhere else is irrelevant. So yes, the state of Schrodinger's cat collapses, and we can determine that it is either alive or dead, but not a superposition of both.
No, no, I think you didn't understand the book. First of all, quote the passage I'm talking about and I'll prove it to you. For a second example, consider the Guild heighliner that was being built on Ix. The construction bay was completely sealed, and a navigator teleported it out. I forget which of the Ix royal house remarked that "any guild navigator can pilot them out, but it would take a late stage steersman (or something to that effect) to guide it back in."
Brian and Kevin are constantly trying to contrive new situations where the spice can act as a deus ex machina
A heighliner travelling through folded space via the holtzmann generators would give the impression to outside viewers as "popping" out and "popping" in from nowhere.
This is not supported by anything Frank ever wrote. Space isn't "folded" to speed up travel. The heighliners go to and fro at very high speeds, but they DO, I repeat, DO, travel the distance in between. If they didn't, there'd be no reason for a navigator to plot a safe course. So what's this malarky about a heighliner leaving a sealed room? Granted that the full extent of the Holtzmann effect and it's many uses was intentionally never fully explained, but this certainly can't be attributed to that.
The Definitive Theory of Cats, unfortunately, can only be laid down in Cat. I know of no people still alive capable of translating Cat to English (most of them died about 40 years ago...). Here is the text as I have it:
Meow.
It's remarkable in its simplicity, isn't it? That, more than any other aspect, tells me it must be right.
Their writing doesn't match Frank Herbert's, in my opinion, but it's always great to have more Dune books.
See, I wish I could agree, but Brian and Kevin's work reads WAY too much like the cheesy fucking Star Trek books. It seems like you're reading a story where the entire thought process behind major parts of the book was to fill space because they couldn't think up a more integral plot. Also, it seems like they were writing different chapters within the same book episodically. Like they were sitting around each week going "What can we do to the characters THIS week?" I'll admit that there were SOME interesting parts of the two prequels I read. I liked the whole Duncan goes to Ginaz thing. But that story doesn't fit with the blurb about the fall of Ginaz in Dune's glossary. That's amazing, considering it occupies all of two sentences, and Brian and Kevin STILL couldn't make it fit better! And Brian seems to be under the impression, like David Lynch and the people doing the Scifi Channel miniseries, that Guild navigators look like grotesque half-butterfly-half-vagina things. You must remember the end of Dune, when there were two PERFECTLY NORMAL LOOKING Guild navigators who came to Arrakis with Shaddam and later talked with Paul. The only distinguishing characteristic were their spice-blackened eyes. Even Edric wasn't described as being as grotesque as they make them out to be.
And Brian turned spice into a method of teleportation, somehow. The spice just makes it possible for navigators to see the safe path to guide ships by, and then the Holtzmann technology actually takes them there. So why did that one twin kid whose name I forget COMPLETELY DISAPPEAR from the chamber he was in after he was saturated in spice? That's ridiculous!
I sense that this post would get too long if I kept going, so I'll stop now. The point is, Fuck Brian Herbert and everyone that looks like him.
God Emperor wasn't as bad as Heretics, but that's neither here nor there. Chapterhouse isn't actually the last book. There was a final one that Frank died before he could complete. Rumor has it that his son is going to complete what needs completed and then release it. Problem with that is, Brian is an ass-terrible author, if I am entitled to my opinion. The House N books are total rubbish. As far as the miniseries, they better fix all the problems they had with the first one, especially the wacky costumes. If even half the crap is fixed, I'll be happy with it.
Actually, there's a perfectly satisfying and reasonable explanation of how a black hole of 14 solar masses can form, and then find it's way as the drainpipe of stellar matter in a binary system....
And to receive that deeply fulfilling answer, all you need to do is BUY MY NEW BOOK entitled, "How to influence people, and con them into buying misleading books" and you can BUY IT NOW for a special one-time-only price of $99.98. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! ACT NOW and receive a tesseract keychain*, ABSOLUTELY FREE.
*Due to dimensional constraints, your tesseract may resemble a Little Piece of Useless Crap.
I have heard black holes referred to as "singularities." If the diameter is a few miles, that's pretty far from a singularity. Are you referring to the diameter of its event horizon, rather than the the diameter of the object itself?
I'm hoping that when mister Douma said "compressed to a diameter of a few miles or less" he was referring to the instant at which the black hole can said to be created. As far as the volume of a singularity, pick your favorite Grand Unified Theory. Stuff like this is where physics and quantum mechanics don't like to agree. The classic idea is that the singularity is a point, and thus cannot have volume. Mathematically speaking, using the density equation d=m/v, where the density of a black hole must be infinite, to cause the effect it does, and the mass is the same as that of the star that used to exist there, the volume must approach zero. However, if you happen to believe in some derivative of string theory, 0-dimensional points cannot exist, and I don't even think I can get into how string theory/M-theory explains black holes. I'll leave that to someone else.
As far as the discrepancy of black holes between 10,000 and 1 million Sols, it's quite possible that one in that range has never been observed. We haven't exactly found a lot of black holes, and there are even still those that believe black holes don't exist. We don't exactly have conclusive proof to that effect, it's just that these anomalies we keep finding REALLY REALLY closely resemble what we'd expect a black hole to be like. Go figure. But hey, it could always be the Amazing Super Mega Anti-Reverse Cosmic Effect that makes us THINK we're finding black holes, and THEN who is going to be laughing? THEN who will be called luddite crackpots for not believing? HUH?
The speed at which you can turn first hand observation into an ad hominem attack astounds me. Perish the thought that you might consider a fresh perspective.
Nice to know that you molded these children instead of the rest of their environment. I assume you were with them when, as you put it, before the age of five when they were learning to learn?
It disturbs me that you consider them "children" to be "molded". You belittle them. And your assumption is both non sequitur and argumentative.
Since you are obviously so high and mighty and have studied these things, I am open to your take on things.
-5, ad hominem. It's plain that you're not open. But yes, I have both studied and observed these things, not only as the teacher, but as the taught.
I don't think going to MIT as an undergraduate is an enviable position. My opinion, and also the opinion of many people I know who have gone there. You seem to think opinion has no bearing on truth. That's disturbing.
Does this mean that our high schools are failing them? Yes.
Because high school are not able to convey college-level ideas to their students?
Because high schools are not able to convey high-school-level ideas to their students. That you don't understand this shows me that you miss the point entirely.
I will let the hundreds of developmental psychologists out there know your opnion. I am sure they would be interested in it. No, there is no standard definition of "develop fully intellectually," but that in no way means that we can not discuss and study it.
Whether you have access to these "hundreds of developmental psychologists" or not is irrelevant. It's a pathetic attempt to impress. And that you presume to speak for them is also a pathetic attempt at something. Are you claiming to be an authority on developmental psychology? Because it would then surprise me that you consider my perspective to be a NEW one. And, uh, that there is no standard definition of "develop fully intellectually," DOES in EVERY way mean that we can not discuss and study it. I guess developmental psychologists don't need to study logic.
The one that is better than mine?
Do you think this is about being better than you? Because there's a disease for people who think that way.
But definitely not for the reason you state (failing high schools). Have you studied any developmental psychology? Have you studied any adolescent psychology? Any educational psychology? If you had, you would know that people progress through different intellectual levels through their entire lives.
Definately not, eh? But then, you're OPEN to fresh perspective, right? Are you waiting for a sign from God to fix the problems in state-funded education? Because it seems to me that you pretend to be able to. Have you studied any applied psychology? If you had, you would KNOW that the idea that "people progress through different intellectual levels through their entire lives" is an oversimplification, much the same way that the OSI reference model is an oversimplification of computing. They are useful, TO A POINT. If you choose to lemming your way through your grad psych class by believing the human mind works that way, it's your own prerogative. Don't assume others don't know better.
"I read it on SlashDot" is not a valid argument or reason.
I agree. And knowing that, you completely avoided the ramifications of that statement. Congratulations.
Developmental psychology shows us completely differently. I suggest you sit down and take a class in it.
I suggest you keep your tongue (fingers?) in check if you intend to say that in the same post that you write, "And you think that I am full of myself?". I don't know what kind of developmental psych professor you'd make, but you're certainly an interesting subject. The vast problem with specialized fields of psych is that every one claims to have THE understanding of how the mind of person/social group/age group "X" works.
I am not suggesting that high school students do not know how to learn, but rather that, as we get older, we are able to understand and learn in new and more profound ways. This is part of maturing and developing, not a matter of the quality of our high schools.
You choose to remove environment from development. I think you should go back to your classes. How can a building that a person goes to for over 40 hours a week not have a significant effect on the "maturing and developing" of that person? How can the teachers in that building, who you claim are supposed to "mold" these "children", not most significantly influence the "maturing and developing" of these students? With one breath you proclaim that teachers are responsible, and in the next breath you hold them in indemnity. You choose to give educators the benefit of the doubt. That's a mistake. Education of the young is the single most important task within a society. Educators don't have the luxury of receiving the benefit of any doubt.
"How to learn" is not a set skill. It is not like learning to add three digit numbers. You do not learn it once and then never have to come back to it again. It is a skill that requires constant attention and development.
"How to learn" is a set skill. You just choose not to look at it on the correct level. But no, it's not like learning to add 3 digit numbers, unless you take into account all the abstract reasoning that must go into learning to add 3 digit numbers. And you haven't. All skills require constant attention and development. If you believe otherwise, you're guilty of decadence.
Did you read what I wrote? It was one of the main points I had. These students, later on, are capable of college-level work. But in high school, even at a place like IMSA (that uses more college-type teaching methods), they are not.
Yes, I read what you wrote. Is that really worth asking? These students are not made capable of "college level work" (a concept I will dispute later, if necessary) because of the education you give them. You grossly underestimate the basic ability of all your students, if you believe they reach you INCAPABLE of a thing. I said before that you're belittling them, and this shows it even more clearly.
This is not IMSA's fault, this is the fact that they have not (using your favorite phrase here) "fully developed intellectually."
Well you went and said it. I don't even know where to begin answering this. This is truly the root of the problem. There need to be stronger and more strict requirements in becoming a teacher. That is why high schools fall short. If you, who believe THAT, are capable of getting a job at IMSA, the problem is a lot worse than I thought. I had respect for what IMSA was trying to do before I talked with you. But knowing you believe that, I can no longer have any respect for the institution that lets you instruct students in anything. I'm really taken aback that you could bastardize a respectable field of psychology by using it as evidence to THAT end. Readers take note: this is the attitude that has caused American educational instutitions to fail, and will eventually cause them to collapse entirely. Note also the irony of his negative opinion of slashdot posters.
Getback to me when you can talk about developmental psychology using more explanations than "I read it on SlashDot."
There is an astounding gap between the intellectual ability of a high school senior and a college senior in terms of their ability to learn.
What magic yardstick are you claiming to use as a measure of intellectual ability?
I work with some of the most gifted kids in the country (I work at the Illinois Math and Science Academy).
You work with them? I know more than a few people currently going there, and more than a few people slated to go there soon. IMSA solicited me as a high school sophomore. I refused. I don't regret that. I digress. My point is that the test scores that admitted these students into your "illustrious" sancta were largely thanks to me. Because it wasn't the teacher that helped these students understand concepts in class. It was me. The teacher (teachers, actually, but let's keep this simple) was capable of little more than reciting the state-approved curriculum, and reading out of the teacher's manual. My point is not that these people don't deserve to be where they are. They do. My point is also not that I deserve to be there too. It's not for me. My point is that you're avoiding the implications of the evidence staring you plainly in the face.
(On a side note, I don't think going to MIT as an undergraduate is an enviable position.)
And they struggle with some concepts and some of the more college-based ways of approaching subjects. Does this mean that our high schools are failing them? No, it simply means that they have not developed fully intellectually.
Does this mean that our high schools are failing them? Yes. It does indeed. And, indeed, what does it mean to "develop fully intellectually"? That's ambiguous at best, intentionally vague at worst.
What you are suggesting is that the only difference between a high school senior and a college senior is *what* they know. You obviously have not been around students in a learning environment if you truly believe that.
I think someone might be a little full of themselves. "What they know" is neither here nor there. If you want to KNOW stuff, read an encyclopedia. Knowing and understanding are not the same thing. With that clarification, you've hit the nail on the head, and gone and contradicted yourself. College graduates ARE more capable of understanding things than high school graduates are. Gee, I wonder if that's because high schools fall short. The reasoning behind the alternative explanation disturbs me.
Colleges teach *how to learn* the same as elementary and high schools. They simply teach it at a much more advanced level.
As so many other/.'ers have already pointed out, if you haven't gotten down *how to learn* by the time you're five years old, you never will. Colleges don't teach one how to learn. Knowing how to learn is an entrance requirement. High schools don't teach much of anything. Knowing how--and being willing--to learn SHOULD BE an entrance requirement.
Incidentally, if you measure the success of a student by the prestige of the college they go to, I suggest you quit your job in education.
You don't understand how consumers have lost their voice? You know just as well as most of the rest of us. You just insist on giving people the benefit of the doubt. The few that care are eclipsed by the many that don't. Apathy is spreading like a disease, and has been for as many years as I care to recall. I share all these sentiments, and I don't care to believe where events like this begin to point.
I'm under the impression that legislators really don't understand the nature of this danger. They won't begin to see it until it affects their interests in a way they can't ignore or tolerate. There's a major lack of tact with technology issues in Congress. I don't think many people understand that opposing the DMCA is not the same as giving consent to dismantle all copyright law. The clarification needs to be made, but most of the people who understand don't have a soapbox to stand on.
Claiming he is guilty is surely against US judicial protocol as he is "Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty".
Raise your hand if you are representing Sklyarov, or are a juror in the case, or are the judge in this case. I thought not. US judicial protocol applies to the judicial system only. It's not a code to live by. His innocence is a nonissue here. He was indicted under a very unjust law, but he DID violate it.
Proclaiming him one way or the other merely makes one look uninformed.
One who blinds themself to the importance of this case is not only uninformed, but effectively reinforcing the position of the DMCA. It was a law passed with ignorance, that relies on ignorance to stand.
Sklyarov DID violate the DMCA. It doesn't need to be said 65 thousand times to be believed. I'm not even the first person in this thread who understands that. This case is not an opportunity to acquit an innocent man. This case is an opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the law he was arrested under. If you can't see that, don't pretend your transparent support of Sklyarov's innocence is helping in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, so you're saying a second is defined in terms of the Earth's rotation? Because, that's not constant, especially in these million year durations that cesium clocks are supposed to only lose a few seconds through. I was under the impression that 'second' was defined in terms of our most precise measurement device, which, up until now, has been cesium:
(taken from merriam-webster): "the base unit of time in the International System of Units that is equal to the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom
I throw Invader Zim into the same pool I throw Rocko's Modern Life, Ren & Stimpy, Sheep in the Big City and the Grim and Evil show in -- supposedly "adult" cartoons that just come off like college students' art projects.
Your list is perfect, but lose Grim and Evil, because it's just plain dumb. The rest are all that Nick ever had that was good, and Spongebob succeeded where Zim failed for only one reason: they pushed Spongebob from Day One. It was the SUPER NEW MEGA COOL NICKTOON. Zim never even had a static time slot. Johnen Vasquez, Joe Murray, John Kricfalusi(sp?), and whoever does Sheep in the Big City, they should all go to Cartoon Network, where they might at least find appreciation in Adult Swim. Then they can replace that "Home Movies" crap that's just The New Improved Doctor Katz, another show that didn't deserve network time.
I mean, why didn't they think of this sooner?
"..so you see, Sir, we HIDE the ads randomly IN the news. Then when they click on a news headline, it really brings them to an AD!"
"So...... basically we're going to lie?"
"YES!!"
"And what happens to the new story that is replaced by an ad?"
"WHO CARES?!"
"Good lord, Johnson, that's BRILLIANT! I knew I wouldn't regret hiring my ex-wife's cousin."
On third thought, yes. It is. This *is* a method of forcing electrons to hold extra energy. The reason the new photons emitted don't disperse in random directions is because they're held in another laser. So yeah. This isn't a convenient storage medium for light. Take laser #2 off the crystal, and you've got a useless rock of yttrium.
Except that I'm wrong. That's how photons and electrons interact, yes, to answer your question. But it isn't the principle the crystals in question are taking advantage of. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you always, always, always read the fucking article before you post. That applies to the slashdot admin, too. Read a higher message off this thread for a working idea of how this stuff works.
Electrons absorb and emit photons when they change energy states. This crystal doesn't slow down light, it's just that it makes the electron hold the extra energy for a shit load of time, which isn't typical in the natural world. After that time, the electron emits a fresh photon and it's done again until it reaches the other side of the crystal. So light isn't "passing" through the crystal, per se. It's being absorbed by electrons, then the energy is being held, then it's being re-emitted as light again.
Ok, now that you've told us where the esteemed Lucasian professor stands, I want to say two things:
a)that's a bunch of crap; I hope you don't believe it. The anthropic principle always strikes me as a bit spurious. There's something about it which doesn't seem kosher, and that post illustrates my point. I mean really, saying "we must be the most advanced culture in existence" isn't an anthropic viewpoint, it's an anthropocentric viewpoint.
and
b)here's an equally-if-not-more-valid proof that shows the opposite:
Our galaxy contains about 200 billion stars. All our assumptions will be conservative, and thus the probabilities can likely be greater.
Assume that 10% of the 200 billion stars in the universe are yellow stars like Sol. Assume that 10% of these yellow stars have planets orbiting them. Assume that 10% of these planetary systems have planets like Earth. Assume that 10% of these earthlike planets have atmospheres capable of sustaining life. Assume that 10% of these atmospherically ideal planets actually have life on them in some form. Now assume that 10% of these planets harbor intelligent life.
Out of 200 billion stars, we still have 200,000 that fit the criteria.
Of course this doesn't imply at all that these 200,000 cultures will evolve even remotely in the same time period, but you said "no civilization exists (nor will ever exist) which is significantly more technically advanced than we are right now".
To make the same disclaimer: this isn't just my crackpot theory, it is a very VERY rough equation credited to astronomer Frank Drake of the U of Cal at Santa Cruz. George Wetherill of the Carnegie Institution of Washington places the odds better, using a computer simulation using the same rules of solar and planetary formation that the universe uses, with the benefit of accelerated time. He claims that Earth-type planets with Jupiter-type companions (to deflect most asteroids from the smaller inner planet) are quite common if the galaxy formed at all the way we believe it did. We've already found a whole bunch of extrasolar gas giants, and when our monitoring equipment gets better we might be able to see those Earth-sized inner planets.
Maybe it's a more rough approximation, but it beats anthropocentric bigotry.
This is just THIS MESSAGE encoded differently. I downloaded this about 9 months ago from a more obscure site. I wouldn't call it "new" given that age. The message in jpg form will be difficult for some to decipher, doubtless. They should at least update the Mersenne prime.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the Constitution outlines what the FEDERAL government can and cannot do. If you had ever read the 10th amendment, you'd know that:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Most importantly, the constitution certainly doesn't say that the government shall not compete with private business. In fact, competition is the only morally correct way I see for the government to attempt to regulate capitalism. It doesn't violate the principles of laissez-faire. CivNet would be a direct competitor of SBC, Ameritech, and any and all other ISP's in Chicagoland. Maybe then they will start offering some decent SDSL at a reasonable price, because they aren't doing that now. The only problem is that I can't believe the government won't try to shove some totally crazy terms of service down our throats to use their precious network. They have to do their part in the war against terrorism, after all. And everyone knows that using Kazaa makes you a terrorist.
I don't think it's fair to blame the user for not knowing that ".txt.pif" is a magic extension that can hurt their computer, or just to tell them "don't open email from someone you don't know". The fact of the matter is that it's wrong for your email client or your web browser to executed code from an unknown source, and the user should have to take positive steps (more than one) to execute such things. Microsoft's email tools are fundamentally broken, even to the point where they betray their supposed ease of use by requiring the user to puzzle over which emails are safe and which aren't.
Now, I'm conflicted here. On the one hand, yes, I do believe that such an email client is fundamentally flawed, and that the company deserves to be chastised for releasing such a thing. On the other hand, it IS fair to blame the user, because it's not NECESSARY for the user to know that *.txt.pif is a dangerous extension. It's simple: NEVER TOUCH AN ATTACHMENT FROM AN UNKNOWN SOURCE. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, AND DIDN'T ASK FOR IT, YOU *DON'T FUCKING NEED IT*. And it *IS* the marketing guy's job to know that. And the beancounter's job. And the job of anyone who deals with a computer every day. Computer literacy was a requirement to get the job. Now I'm not trying to say that these people ARE computer literate, but they really really REALLY *should* be. When *I* hire *you*, and *you* are using *my* equipment, and you run an attachment DESPITE THAT:
1. You never asked for it, and thus don't need it for anything.
2. You don't know for sure what it is or what it does.
3. I have told the managers to post notices and make sure everyone in the company understands that such a situation is potentially dangerous, and to exercise caution before curiousity.
then it is MOST DEFINATELY your fault, dumbass. You're fired. Get your shit and get out. Leave your access card with the security team at the main entrance. Sayonara. I don't take pity on you because you did something stupid, and you can't claim ignorance. It *IS* your job to know.
Perhaps there should be a clause similar to the impeachment proceedings stuff, except for congress. Passing unconstitutional laws sounds to me like "high crimes and misdemeanors". Only who would bring about the charges, and who would oversee the trial? That would get a little hairy.
Yes, I certainly have read all eight books (not counting Frank Herbert's Eye and I'd never read House Corrino), and I'm looking forward to the sequel to Chapterhouse that will finally end the series.
That you pretend to have read these books is amusing, since anyone who has read them wouldn't confuse their story lines with that of David Lynch's movie. They are unmistakeably different. The phrase "fold space" was not used by Herbert; it was invented by Lynch.
You would do well to actually read the books, instead of making trollish claims.
Because The Hobbit is a fundamentaly differnet story. It is not the prequel, it is a chidlrens book. It was designed and written as one, and thats what it is.
Just because the story isn't up to your standards doesn't mean it's a children's book. I doubt many children would read a book so long, without some sort of my-age character constantly getting into R. L. Stine-esque situations. Children read utter crap, and The Hobbit isn't utter crap. But I digress.
There's background information in The Hobbit that's necessary to understand the LOTR universe. Gandalf does (or should I say Tolkien LETS Gandalf do) a decent job recapping the whole Bilbo got the ring from Gollum part of the story... but anyone remember the part of Fellowship where Frodo, Aragorn, and crew find the petrified trolls? If you haven't read The Hobbit, you'd have NO idea what that's about. I'm not saying that's a particularly important part of the story, but little things like that complete the tale of Middle Earth. I'd much rather have a movie that covers the important background info, sort of a combination Hobbit/Silmarillion story. Is there going to be enough background story in the Fellowship movie so that everyone understands Saruman's motivations? His loyalties? What about the whole driving Sauron from Mirkwood thing? The crafting of the rings? What does it mean to be an Istari/Maiar/Valar? What is this long-dead empire that Aragorn intends to revive? What's the deal with Sauron? It might be nice to understand why he's doing what he's doing. Not just looking for the ring, but the whole deal. Why he's trying to destroy every damn thing.
They really should have released a good prequel before they did the LOTR movies. Both to test the waters, and to appease all the sticklers for accuracy. Plus it would have been another chance to show off all the neat effects, scenery, and sell more merchandise. Why did they let this opportunity pass them?
You're essentially right. Although the message (in the form of polarized photons) HAS travelled instantly from an arbitrary distance thanks to the magic of entangled photons, Bob can't determine the message unless he knows which way to orient his polarity detector. So, ironically, he needs to know the message before he can read the message. And to answer your question, I believe that entangled photons always have complimentary polarities.
Well if you read the article, you will see that light is being bounced off the object in question. This more or less explicitly states that direct observation is taking place, where "observation" is defined as bombarding an object with particles in order to learn something about it. The fact that these photons never reach human eyes is irrelevant. The fact that the photons are entangled with others somewhere else is irrelevant. So yes, the state of Schrodinger's cat collapses, and we can determine that it is either alive or dead, but not a superposition of both.
No, no, I think you didn't understand the book. First of all, quote the passage I'm talking about and I'll prove it to you. For a second example, consider the Guild heighliner that was being built on Ix. The construction bay was completely sealed, and a navigator teleported it out. I forget which of the Ix royal house remarked that "any guild navigator can pilot them out, but it would take a late stage steersman (or something to that effect) to guide it back in."
Brian and Kevin are constantly trying to contrive new situations where the spice can act as a deus ex machina
A heighliner travelling through folded space via the holtzmann generators would give the impression to outside viewers as "popping" out and "popping" in from nowhere.
This is not supported by anything Frank ever wrote. Space isn't "folded" to speed up travel. The heighliners go to and fro at very high speeds, but they DO, I repeat, DO, travel the distance in between. If they didn't, there'd be no reason for a navigator to plot a safe course. So what's this malarky about a heighliner leaving a sealed room? Granted that the full extent of the Holtzmann effect and it's many uses was intentionally never fully explained, but this certainly can't be attributed to that.
The Definitive Theory of Cats, unfortunately, can only be laid down in Cat. I know of no people still alive capable of translating Cat to English (most of them died about 40 years ago...). Here is the text as I have it:
Meow.
It's remarkable in its simplicity, isn't it? That, more than any other aspect, tells me it must be right.
Their writing doesn't match Frank Herbert's, in my opinion, but it's always great to have more Dune books.
See, I wish I could agree, but Brian and Kevin's work reads WAY too much like the cheesy fucking Star Trek books. It seems like you're reading a story where the entire thought process behind major parts of the book was to fill space because they couldn't think up a more integral plot. Also, it seems like they were writing different chapters within the same book episodically. Like they were sitting around each week going "What can we do to the characters THIS week?" I'll admit that there were SOME interesting parts of the two prequels I read. I liked the whole Duncan goes to Ginaz thing. But that story doesn't fit with the blurb about the fall of Ginaz in Dune's glossary. That's amazing, considering it occupies all of two sentences, and Brian and Kevin STILL couldn't make it fit better! And Brian seems to be under the impression, like David Lynch and the people doing the Scifi Channel miniseries, that Guild navigators look like grotesque half-butterfly-half-vagina things. You must remember the end of Dune, when there were two PERFECTLY NORMAL LOOKING Guild navigators who came to Arrakis with Shaddam and later talked with Paul. The only distinguishing characteristic were their spice-blackened eyes. Even Edric wasn't described as being as grotesque as they make them out to be.
And Brian turned spice into a method of teleportation, somehow. The spice just makes it possible for navigators to see the safe path to guide ships by, and then the Holtzmann technology actually takes them there. So why did that one twin kid whose name I forget COMPLETELY DISAPPEAR from the chamber he was in after he was saturated in spice? That's ridiculous!
I sense that this post would get too long if I kept going, so I'll stop now. The point is, Fuck Brian Herbert and everyone that looks like him.
God Emperor wasn't as bad as Heretics, but that's neither here nor there. Chapterhouse isn't actually the last book. There was a final one that Frank died before he could complete. Rumor has it that his son is going to complete what needs completed and then release it. Problem with that is, Brian is an ass-terrible author, if I am entitled to my opinion. The House N books are total rubbish. As far as the miniseries, they better fix all the problems they had with the first one, especially the wacky costumes. If even half the crap is fixed, I'll be happy with it.
Actually, there's a perfectly satisfying and reasonable explanation of how a black hole of 14 solar masses can form, and then find it's way as the drainpipe of stellar matter in a binary system....
And to receive that deeply fulfilling answer, all you need to do is BUY MY NEW BOOK entitled, "How to influence people, and con them into buying misleading books" and you can BUY IT NOW for a special one-time-only price of $99.98. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! ACT NOW and receive a tesseract keychain*, ABSOLUTELY FREE.
*Due to dimensional constraints, your tesseract may resemble a Little Piece of Useless Crap.
I have heard black holes referred to as "singularities." If the diameter is a few miles, that's pretty far from a singularity. Are you referring to the diameter of its event horizon, rather than the the diameter of the object itself?
I'm hoping that when mister Douma said "compressed to a diameter of a few miles or less" he was referring to the instant at which the black hole can said to be created. As far as the volume of a singularity, pick your favorite Grand Unified Theory. Stuff like this is where physics and quantum mechanics don't like to agree. The classic idea is that the singularity is a point, and thus cannot have volume. Mathematically speaking, using the density equation d=m/v, where the density of a black hole must be infinite, to cause the effect it does, and the mass is the same as that of the star that used to exist there, the volume must approach zero. However, if you happen to believe in some derivative of string theory, 0-dimensional points cannot exist, and I don't even think I can get into how string theory/M-theory explains black holes. I'll leave that to someone else.
As far as the discrepancy of black holes between 10,000 and 1 million Sols, it's quite possible that one in that range has never been observed. We haven't exactly found a lot of black holes, and there are even still those that believe black holes don't exist. We don't exactly have conclusive proof to that effect, it's just that these anomalies we keep finding REALLY REALLY closely resemble what we'd expect a black hole to be like. Go figure. But hey, it could always be the Amazing Super Mega Anti-Reverse Cosmic Effect that makes us THINK we're finding black holes, and THEN who is going to be laughing? THEN who will be called luddite crackpots for not believing? HUH?
The speed at which you can turn first hand observation into an ad hominem attack astounds me. Perish the thought that you might consider a fresh perspective.
Nice to know that you molded these children instead of the rest of their environment. I assume you were with them when, as you put it, before the age of five when they were learning to learn?
It disturbs me that you consider them "children" to be "molded". You belittle them. And your assumption is both non sequitur and argumentative.
Since you are obviously so high and mighty and have studied these things, I am open to your take on things.
-5, ad hominem. It's plain that you're not open. But yes, I have both studied and observed these things, not only as the teacher, but as the taught.
I don't think going to MIT as an undergraduate is an enviable position. My opinion, and also the opinion of many people I know who have gone there. You seem to think opinion has no bearing on truth. That's disturbing.
Does this mean that our high schools are failing them? Yes.
Because high school are not able to convey college-level ideas to their students?
Because high schools are not able to convey high-school-level ideas to their students. That you don't understand this shows me that you miss the point entirely.
I will let the hundreds of developmental psychologists out there know your opnion. I am sure they would be interested in it. No, there is no standard definition of "develop fully intellectually," but that in no way means that we can not discuss and study it.
Whether you have access to these "hundreds of developmental psychologists" or not is irrelevant. It's a pathetic attempt to impress. And that you presume to speak for them is also a pathetic attempt at something. Are you claiming to be an authority on developmental psychology? Because it would then surprise me that you consider my perspective to be a NEW one. And, uh, that there is no standard definition of "develop fully intellectually," DOES in EVERY way mean that we can not discuss and study it. I guess developmental psychologists don't need to study logic.
The one that is better than mine?
Do you think this is about being better than you? Because there's a disease for people who think that way.
But definitely not for the reason you state (failing high schools). Have you studied any developmental psychology? Have you studied any adolescent psychology? Any educational psychology? If you had, you would know that people progress through different intellectual levels through their entire lives.
Definately not, eh? But then, you're OPEN to fresh perspective, right? Are you waiting for a sign from God to fix the problems in state-funded education? Because it seems to me that you pretend to be able to. Have you studied any applied psychology? If you had, you would KNOW that the idea that "people progress through different intellectual levels through their entire lives" is an oversimplification, much the same way that the OSI reference model is an oversimplification of computing. They are useful, TO A POINT. If you choose to lemming your way through your grad psych class by believing the human mind works that way, it's your own prerogative. Don't assume others don't know better.
"I read it on SlashDot" is not a valid argument or reason.
I agree. And knowing that, you completely avoided the ramifications of that statement. Congratulations.
Developmental psychology shows us completely differently. I suggest you sit down and take a class in it.
I suggest you keep your tongue (fingers?) in check if you intend to say that in the same post that you write, "And you think that I am full of myself?". I don't know what kind of developmental psych professor you'd make, but you're certainly an interesting subject. The vast problem with specialized fields of psych is that every one claims to have THE understanding of how the mind of person/social group/age group "X" works.
I am not suggesting that high school students do not know how to learn, but rather that, as we get older, we are able to understand and learn in new and more profound ways. This is part of maturing and developing, not a matter of the quality of our high schools.
You choose to remove environment from development. I think you should go back to your classes. How can a building that a person goes to for over 40 hours a week not have a significant effect on the "maturing and developing" of that person? How can the teachers in that building, who you claim are supposed to "mold" these "children", not most significantly influence the "maturing and developing" of these students? With one breath you proclaim that teachers are responsible, and in the next breath you hold them in indemnity. You choose to give educators the benefit of the doubt. That's a mistake. Education of the young is the single most important task within a society. Educators don't have the luxury of receiving the benefit of any doubt.
"How to learn" is not a set skill. It is not like learning to add three digit numbers. You do not learn it once and then never have to come back to it again. It is a skill that requires constant attention and development.
"How to learn" is a set skill. You just choose not to look at it on the correct level. But no, it's not like learning to add 3 digit numbers, unless you take into account all the abstract reasoning that must go into learning to add 3 digit numbers. And you haven't. All skills require constant attention and development. If you believe otherwise, you're guilty of decadence.
Did you read what I wrote? It was one of the main points I had. These students, later on, are capable of college-level work. But in high school, even at a place like IMSA (that uses more college-type teaching methods), they are not.
Yes, I read what you wrote. Is that really worth asking? These students are not made capable of "college level work" (a concept I will dispute later, if necessary) because of the education you give them. You grossly underestimate the basic ability of all your students, if you believe they reach you INCAPABLE of a thing. I said before that you're belittling them, and this shows it even more clearly.
This is not IMSA's fault, this is the fact that they have not (using your favorite phrase here) "fully developed intellectually."
Well you went and said it. I don't even know where to begin answering this. This is truly the root of the problem. There need to be stronger and more strict requirements in becoming a teacher. That is why high schools fall short. If you, who believe THAT, are capable of getting a job at IMSA, the problem is a lot worse than I thought. I had respect for what IMSA was trying to do before I talked with you. But knowing you believe that, I can no longer have any respect for the institution that lets you instruct students in anything. I'm really taken aback that you could bastardize a respectable field of psychology by using it as evidence to THAT end. Readers take note: this is the attitude that has caused American educational instutitions to fail, and will eventually cause them to collapse entirely. Note also the irony of his negative opinion of slashdot posters.
Getback to me when you can talk about developmental psychology using more explanations than "I read it on SlashDot."
-10, ad hominem. And please do reply. Please.
There is an astounding gap between the intellectual ability of a high school senior and a college senior in terms of their ability to learn.
/.'ers have already pointed out, if you haven't gotten down *how to learn* by the time you're five years old, you never will. Colleges don't teach one how to learn. Knowing how to learn is an entrance requirement. High schools don't teach much of anything. Knowing how--and being willing--to learn SHOULD BE an entrance requirement.
What magic yardstick are you claiming to use as a measure of intellectual ability?
I work with some of the most gifted kids in the country (I work at the Illinois Math and Science Academy).
You work with them? I know more than a few people currently going there, and more than a few people slated to go there soon. IMSA solicited me as a high school sophomore. I refused. I don't regret that. I digress. My point is that the test scores that admitted these students into your "illustrious" sancta were largely thanks to me. Because it wasn't the teacher that helped these students understand concepts in class. It was me. The teacher (teachers, actually, but let's keep this simple) was capable of little more than reciting the state-approved curriculum, and reading out of the teacher's manual. My point is not that these people don't deserve to be where they are. They do. My point is also not that I deserve to be there too. It's not for me. My point is that you're avoiding the implications of the evidence staring you plainly in the face.
(On a side note, I don't think going to MIT as an undergraduate is an enviable position.)
And they struggle with some concepts and some of the more college-based ways of approaching subjects. Does this mean that our high schools are failing them? No, it simply means that they have not developed fully intellectually.
Does this mean that our high schools are failing them? Yes. It does indeed. And, indeed, what does it mean to "develop fully intellectually"? That's ambiguous at best, intentionally vague at worst.
What you are suggesting is that the only difference between a high school senior and a college senior is *what* they know. You obviously have not been around students in a learning environment if you truly believe that.
I think someone might be a little full of themselves. "What they know" is neither here nor there. If you want to KNOW stuff, read an encyclopedia. Knowing and understanding are not the same thing. With that clarification, you've hit the nail on the head, and gone and contradicted yourself. College graduates ARE more capable of understanding things than high school graduates are. Gee, I wonder if that's because high schools fall short. The reasoning behind the alternative explanation disturbs me.
Colleges teach *how to learn* the same as elementary and high schools. They simply teach it at a much more advanced level.
As so many other
Incidentally, if you measure the success of a student by the prestige of the college they go to, I suggest you quit your job in education.
You don't understand how consumers have lost their voice? You know just as well as most of the rest of us. You just insist on giving people the benefit of the doubt. The few that care are eclipsed by the many that don't. Apathy is spreading like a disease, and has been for as many years as I care to recall. I share all these sentiments, and I don't care to believe where events like this begin to point.
I'm under the impression that legislators really don't understand the nature of this danger. They won't begin to see it until it affects their interests in a way they can't ignore or tolerate. There's a major lack of tact with technology issues in Congress. I don't think many people understand that opposing the DMCA is not the same as giving consent to dismantle all copyright law. The clarification needs to be made, but most of the people who understand don't have a soapbox to stand on.
Claiming he is guilty is surely against US judicial protocol as he is "Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty".
Raise your hand if you are representing Sklyarov, or are a juror in the case, or are the judge in this case. I thought not. US judicial protocol applies to the judicial system only. It's not a code to live by. His innocence is a nonissue here. He was indicted under a very unjust law, but he DID violate it.
Proclaiming him one way or the other merely makes one look uninformed.
One who blinds themself to the importance of this case is not only uninformed, but effectively reinforcing the position of the DMCA. It was a law passed with ignorance, that relies on ignorance to stand.
Sklyarov DID violate the DMCA. It doesn't need to be said 65 thousand times to be believed. I'm not even the first person in this thread who understands that. This case is not an opportunity to acquit an innocent man. This case is an opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the law he was arrested under. If you can't see that, don't pretend your transparent support of Sklyarov's innocence is helping in any way.