I want to better the positions of my hard-working, respectable African-American brothers and sisters; the last thing I need is Uncle Tom house niggers getting in the way.
Do you really want to help better the positions of your African-American brothers and sisters? First, quit trying to tear down those of color who are successful! Any black person who actually accomplishes what you claim you want automatically gets labeled as an "Uncle Tom", "race traitor", "not black enough", etc. What derogatory terms apply just to whites who are successful? The black community in general complains about not achieving in society while at the same time spitting on any of their members that do achieve. Change this, and you've won over 75% of the battle--and that's not something that can be done by the white community. Yes, there's some attitudes problems in the white community, but fixing the attitude problem in the black community will be a major step to fixing the attitudes of the white community.
Second, take that chip off your shoulder. You're going around looking for a fight, attacking those who would be willing to help you except for your past attacks on them. I've never owned a slave, and as far as I know there are no slave owners in my family tree...I've never bothered to look. Even if there were, I wasn't really around to advise my great- great- great- great- great-grandfather on what to do, now, was I? If I'm the enemy in this, the only reason is because you want me to be.
If you are willing to work the problem from both sides to meet in the middle, I'm right there to work it with you. The vast majority of people are. But if you just want to sit and complain, attack the people who would be willing to help you, and demand that others provide the entire solution to the problem while you just sit back and wait, then screw you. If I'm going to get attacked for not helping, and also suffer the same attacks for helping, guess which one I'm going to do.
Well, that's my say. Yes, it's blunt, and a bit harsh in places. That's life; sometimes to work towards a solution to a problem you need to take a breath and state what you believe the problems to be, no matter what toes might get stepped on. You can ignore everything that I'm saying here and yell "racist" or "wolf" or whatever, and complain that I'm not fixing what you perceive as wrong in your life; I expect that, just more noise to ignore. But maybe--just maybe--I've not wasted my time typing this, and you'll start thinking about who you are fighting against, who you should be fighting against, who you need to help you reach your goals, and what is really the right way to convince them to help.
Since the 10th amendment to the Constitution states that any powers not given to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the People, would you please tell us where (Article and Section, or Amendment) in the Constitution the power is granted for each of the Cabinet-level Departments?
What is the differece between an asteroid, planet and brown dwarf though? Just size?
Let's break planet down into two categories: gas-giant (like Jupiter) and rocky (like Earth or Mars). An asteroid would be a rocky body that is too small to be a planet. The dividing line between asteroid and planet is vague, as is the dividing line between gas-giant planet and brown dwarf. Some would qualify Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune as brown dwarfs. Throwing moons into the mix makes the planet/asteroid question even more interesting.
If there's no central star, what gravitational pull is keeping them in place?
Who says anything has to "keep them in place"? Are they going to fall down? (No, no gravity...)
Seriously, though, they will probably be orbiting around the gravitational center of the galaxy, just like our sun and most of the other stars in the galaxy do.
Re:Here's what will really blow your mind...
on
Electron Fission
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the book recommendation; I'll have to look into it. (As my "To-Read List" gets longer and longer...)
In the two-slit experiment, you also have a discontinuity in the wave function of the electron: the slits. The experiment with the bubbles that is discussed is essentially the same as the two-slit experiment, with the slits replaced by the bubbles. The main difference, however, is that the bubbles constrain the wave functions such that they cannot interfere with each other.
Imagine, if you will, that we run the two-slit experiment, sending through one electron at a time. We know that we will build up the wave-based interference pattern on the screen. Now, we manage to stop time at the precise instant when we know an electron (or its wave function) will be going through one slit or the other. We know at this very instant that there is a probability of the electron existing in the left slit, and an equal probability of the electron existing in the right slit, and no probability of it existing anywhere else. We thus have a discontinuity in the electron's wave function, except with the wave function constrained by slits instead of bubbles.
I will agree that you can't directly observe the wave function; anytime you try to it will collapse into a particle. However, you can indirectly observe it, and this is what the two-slit experiment does. If you put a detector on each slit to see which slit the electron goes through, you end up with a different pattern on the screen that you get without the detectors. By looking for particles, you are forcing the wave function to collapse, and so you eliminate the wave interferece pattern. Also, if the electron is physically splitting in half, and half of each electron is going through each slit, we would not end up with an interference pattern to begin with, particle detectors or no.
Thus we know that, without the detectors, it is the wave function that is traversing the experiment, and that at some point this function must be discontinuous to create the interference pattern. So in these bubbles there is nothing new in the behavior of the electrons and their wave functions that is not already present in the two-slit experiment.
Re:Here's what will really blow your mind...
on
Electron Fission
·
· Score: 1
But the wave function does have a reality. When you run the two-slit experiment, sending only one electron through the aparatus at a time, you still end up with an interference pattern. If the wave function had no reality, you would end up with a two-maxima distribution when you use one electron at a time. Unless you are actually looking for a particle, it is the particle that has no reality. Until you actually look for the electron, there is no physical electron to "actually split up".
You postulate that there might be some other effect creating the extra bubbles. That I could probably buy into. However, saying, "...the electron actually split up, only to recombine later" presents significantly more problems than it solves. Doesn't that mean that we could open just one of the bubbles, and look at a bare half-electron? I think that that would have been trumpeted very loudly in the quote above if it had been observed.
Or does the fact that we try to observe the half-electron make it instantaneously recombine with another half-electron? If it does, does it always grab its other original half? If it grabs its other original half, how do you distinguish that from the collapsing wave function that I talked about earlier? When it grabs its other half, does it leave the bubble that the other half had been in intact, or does the bubble dissolve without that half-electron still in it?
If the half-electron doesn't always grab its original other half, doesn't that mean that we would sometimes be able to open both bubbles and find an electron in each? Where do these two "new" half-electrons come from? Have we just performed an energy to matter conversion, or did some other electron outside a bubble just split? If an electron outside a bubble can split, and there is no reality to the wave function, then how come there have been no observed half-electrons in nature yet? After all, this isn't a high-energy event.
Applying Occam's Razor, I think that I'll stick with the collapsing wave function. Saying that we are dealing with two half-electrons conflicts vastly more with existing observations; dealing with the wave function falls right in line with them.
Re:Here's what will really blow your mind...
on
Electron Fission
·
· Score: 1
I would theorize that the "empty" bubble would disspate, since it would no longer have any part of the electron wave function in it. However, it might just become an empty bubble. (Hmmm... Here I am, saying, "I think that it will disappear; of course, it might just stay around." Is it still to late to run for political office?;-))
Okay, now that we've got theories for the results, who's going to volunteer to do the experiment?
Hmmm... Quite interesting. The main meat of the process:
According to quantum theory, the state of a particle is described as its wave
function. The probability that the particle will be found in any position is
proportional to the square of the wave function at that point in space. Maris'
theory considers what happens to electrons when they are immersed in liquid
helium at a temperature of one degree above absolute zero. Previous
experiments have shown that an electron in helium becomes trapped in a
bubble approximately 100-billionths of an inch in diameter. The bubble drifts
through the liquid with the wave function of the electron confined inside it.
Maris shows that when the bubble is illuminated with infrared light, the bubble
can divide into two smaller bubbles each containing a part of the wave
function of the electron. These two bubbles can then move independently
through the liquid and become separated from each other.
I think that the important thing to realize here is that they are talking about the wave function of the electron being inside the bubble and splitting in two, not the actual electron. IANATP (Theoretical Physicist), but if I recall correctly (especially since the quote above agrees...), the wave function of a particle is actually a measure of the probability that that particle will be found in a particular place when you look for it. This press release seems to be nothing more that Schrodin ger 's Cat, but with an electron instead of a cat (the SPCA is happy about that). I suspect that if you check in the bubbles for electrons, one would have an electron, and the other would not. It is the act of observing that causes the wave function to collapse into an actual physical property. So, I don't think that we're actually talking about electron fission here, but electron wave function fission.
These tests having been completed, it was found that these slimes originate from Washington, D.C., and are closely related to those that can still be found in the Capitol Building and the White House.
Said one scientist, "The incoherent language that these slimes started spouting as soon as the cameras were turned on them should have been an instant tip-off."
You can "shrug off" Liberty's senseless warnings about greenhouse gasses, explain the volcano thing, and tell her to get a fucking haircut.
But this is Steven Hawkings talking.
Might I point out that Steven Hawkings is a theoretical physicist, not an environmental bio-chemist? Just because he's the top in one field doesn't mean that he knows squat in another field. I don't know about you, but if I had to have heart sugery done, I would pick a fairly decent thoracic cardiovascular sugeon over the world's best veternarian (or even oral surgeon, for that matter) any day of the week.
Not to take anything away from Steven Hawkings, of course. If I needed a description of how a black hole would peel the atmosphere off the Earth if the two collided, I'd ask Hawkings. For a prediction of the environmental future of the Earth otherwise, he's not tops on my list.
Several other posters have mentioned that it's kind of cool that Slashdot hasn't gone and removed this article, posted by the hackers. After all, how many sites would leave evidence of their security holes lying around?
We must remember, however, that part of Slashdot's defense for the posting of DeCSS source code and links, and postings of Microsoft's butchered implementation of the Kerebos standard is that Slashdot doesn't delete or edit any posts. If Slashdot were to remove this article, it would remove one of their major points of defense in these two cases. So, leaving this article up is not only the morally right thing to do, it is also a legal necessity for Andover.
Alright then, where would be get this infinite amount of data from???
All the old National Geographics that everybody seems to have collected for some strange reason?
Maybe the Congressional Record or Internal Revenue Code? About time we got some good use out of those... Yeah, I know that they're not quite infinite yet, but just wait 'til next year!
Perhaps the phone numbers of all the girls who won't go out with me?
We could always store the coordinates of all the points on the perimiter of the Mandelbrot set.
Of course, we could just load it up with the digits of pi or e, but that's kind of boring.
The authoritative compliation of all the troll postings on Slashdot?
We could always use the lyrics to "Infinite Bottles of Beer on the Wall", but after the first few hundred thousand bottles we'd probably be slurring too badly for anybody to understand it.
I'm pretty sure that I might have missed a source or two...
"There are an infinite number of individually addressable states -- the Coulomb potentials -- where quantum bits can be stored," said Bucksbaum.
So does this mean that each electron out there is like Borel'sinfinite monkeys, and they all contain the complete works of Shakespeare? Or even more importantly, the un-"encrytped" digital signal of every movie ever made? If the MPAA figures this out, and gets a judge to order a halt on distribution of electrons, there sure will be a lot of hungry people in this country!
...I can't see any logic flaws in RMS's interpretation, but he has always been much more strict in following copyright law to the letter than just about everyone else, where other people ignore problems that would never occur in practice...What is wrong to do is to take this as an insult to KDE. Being paranoid about copyright law is a fundamental part of RMS's nature.
In large part I agree with you, but we also have to remember that we are dealing with more people than just RMS here, and they have natures, too. Do some possible legal problems stemming from the history of KDE still exist? Possibly. Have the KDE team worked to solve some definite problems with the GPL, and to bring their product in line with RMS's interpretation? Certainly. The main problem seems to me that RMS hasn't taken the natures of the Troll Tech team into account, and has given scant recognition of the steps that they have taken so far, instead starting in on a new tangent. They've done what he had been asking; at least give them a breather and a decent "attaboy" before launching in again.
If you ever try to train a dog to do tricks, you don't reward it for doing what you want by hitting it in a different place. At best, the dog will learn to ignore you. (Actually, positive rewards work a lot better than negative for training dogs, but the law isn't really set up for positive rewards.)
And not only that you are wrong on all other counts. You are spouting the same exact bullshit the MPAA is trying to.
You overlooked the fact that boing boing started his message with, "From the mpaa website:". Of course it's the same exact bullshit the MPAA is spouting; the entire post is quoted directly from their site. Not to jump on you, but boing boing doesn't deserve to be jumped on in this case. His/her viewpoint is probably the same as yours.
the smart money is on the new Dodge RAM. with a supercab and a more powerful engine, you just can't beat the deals that most places are offering on it.
The problem, though, is that it comes with windows pre-installed...
I've noticed that there are a lot of posts about this article to the effect of "These MPAA lawyers are so dumb; they're talking about Linux BSD, and there is no such thing." Now, don't get me wrong, I think that the MPAA has their collective cranium firmly lodged up their rectal orifice on this one, but I'm not sure that the lawyers deserve the flames they're taking on this point. We have to remember that we are reading a transcript typed up by a court reporter who has proabaly not spent much time researching the technical aspects of this matter. It is entirely possible that the lawyers' notes read 'Linux/BSD' and the court reporter is taking down what they say, losing the silent slash.
Guys/gals, put this one down as a typographical error before we start looking too petty, and let's start looking at the real substance of what the two sides are saying.
In addition, "Screen Rotation" function enables that end-user can see the screen both landscape view and portrait view for different usage, completely let user feel friendly and comfortable.
Ok, classic literature it's not, but I think that the main point comes through: you can use the screen in either a vertical or horizontal orientation. Thus, it's both a 640x480 and 480x640 screen.
You might try the XFree86 Font Deuglification Mini HOWTO for some help with the Netscape fonts. Although not perfect, it made quite a difference for me.
Slashdot Mirror
!#@*&%^ preview added a space after the 'a' in a tag. doesn't work to good. Sorry, folk!
Do you really want to help better the positions of your African-American brothers and sisters? First, quit trying to tear down those of color who are successful! Any black person who actually accomplishes what you claim you want automatically gets labeled as an "Uncle Tom", "race traitor", "not black enough", etc. What derogatory terms apply just to whites who are successful? The black community in general complains about not achieving in society while at the same time spitting on any of their members that do achieve. Change this, and you've won over 75% of the battle--and that's not something that can be done by the white community. Yes, there's some attitudes problems in the white community, but fixing the attitude problem in the black community will be a major step to fixing the attitudes of the white community.
Second, take that chip off your shoulder. You're going around looking for a fight, attacking those who would be willing to help you except for your past attacks on them. I've never owned a slave, and as far as I know there are no slave owners in my family tree...I've never bothered to look. Even if there were, I wasn't really around to advise my great- great- great- great- great-grandfather on what to do, now, was I? If I'm the enemy in this, the only reason is because you want me to be.
If you are willing to work the problem from both sides to meet in the middle, I'm right there to work it with you. The vast majority of people are. But if you just want to sit and complain, attack the people who would be willing to help you, and demand that others provide the entire solution to the problem while you just sit back and wait, then screw you. If I'm going to get attacked for not helping, and also suffer the same attacks for helping, guess which one I'm going to do.
Well, that's my say. Yes, it's blunt, and a bit harsh in places. That's life; sometimes to work towards a solution to a problem you need to take a breath and state what you believe the problems to be, no matter what toes might get stepped on. You can ignore everything that I'm saying here and yell "racist" or "wolf" or whatever, and complain that I'm not fixing what you perceive as wrong in your life; I expect that, just more noise to ignore. But maybe--just maybe--I've not wasted my time typing this, and you'll start thinking about who you are fighting against, who you should be fighting against, who you need to help you reach your goals, and what is really the right way to convince them to help.
Hmmm... It looks to me like a close-up, very grainy picture of a person's left eye. But that's just my opinion.
Since the 10th amendment to the Constitution states that any powers not given to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the People, would you please tell us where (Article and Section, or Amendment) in the Constitution the power is granted for each of the Cabinet-level Departments?
For a detailed discussion of these differences and more, you might want to check out Lunar Colony's article, "What's the difference between a planet and a brown dwarf star?". They also have an article "What's the difference between a planet and an asteroid?".
Hope this helps.
Seriously, though, they will probably be orbiting around the gravitational center of the galaxy, just like our sun and most of the other stars in the galaxy do.
In the two-slit experiment, you also have a discontinuity in the wave function of the electron: the slits. The experiment with the bubbles that is discussed is essentially the same as the two-slit experiment, with the slits replaced by the bubbles. The main difference, however, is that the bubbles constrain the wave functions such that they cannot interfere with each other.
Imagine, if you will, that we run the two-slit experiment, sending through one electron at a time. We know that we will build up the wave-based interference pattern on the screen. Now, we manage to stop time at the precise instant when we know an electron (or its wave function) will be going through one slit or the other. We know at this very instant that there is a probability of the electron existing in the left slit, and an equal probability of the electron existing in the right slit, and no probability of it existing anywhere else. We thus have a discontinuity in the electron's wave function, except with the wave function constrained by slits instead of bubbles.
I will agree that you can't directly observe the wave function; anytime you try to it will collapse into a particle. However, you can indirectly observe it, and this is what the two-slit experiment does. If you put a detector on each slit to see which slit the electron goes through, you end up with a different pattern on the screen that you get without the detectors. By looking for particles, you are forcing the wave function to collapse, and so you eliminate the wave interferece pattern. Also, if the electron is physically splitting in half, and half of each electron is going through each slit, we would not end up with an interference pattern to begin with, particle detectors or no.
Thus we know that, without the detectors, it is the wave function that is traversing the experiment, and that at some point this function must be discontinuous to create the interference pattern. So in these bubbles there is nothing new in the behavior of the electrons and their wave functions that is not already present in the two-slit experiment.
You postulate that there might be some other effect creating the extra bubbles. That I could probably buy into. However, saying, "...the electron actually split up, only to recombine later" presents significantly more problems than it solves. Doesn't that mean that we could open just one of the bubbles, and look at a bare half-electron? I think that that would have been trumpeted very loudly in the quote above if it had been observed.
Or does the fact that we try to observe the half-electron make it instantaneously recombine with another half-electron? If it does, does it always grab its other original half? If it grabs its other original half, how do you distinguish that from the collapsing wave function that I talked about earlier? When it grabs its other half, does it leave the bubble that the other half had been in intact, or does the bubble dissolve without that half-electron still in it?
If the half-electron doesn't always grab its original other half, doesn't that mean that we would sometimes be able to open both bubbles and find an electron in each? Where do these two "new" half-electrons come from? Have we just performed an energy to matter conversion, or did some other electron outside a bubble just split? If an electron outside a bubble can split, and there is no reality to the wave function, then how come there have been no observed half-electrons in nature yet? After all, this isn't a high-energy event.
Applying Occam's Razor, I think that I'll stick with the collapsing wave function. Saying that we are dealing with two half-electrons conflicts vastly more with existing observations; dealing with the wave function falls right in line with them.
Okay, now that we've got theories for the results, who's going to volunteer to do the experiment?
Said one scientist, "The incoherent language that these slimes started spouting as soon as the cameras were turned on them should have been an instant tip-off."
Not to take anything away from Steven Hawkings, of course. If I needed a description of how a black hole would peel the atmosphere off the Earth if the two collided, I'd ask Hawkings. For a prediction of the environmental future of the Earth otherwise, he's not tops on my list.
We must remember, however, that part of Slashdot's defense for the posting of DeCSS source code and links, and postings of Microsoft's butchered implementation of the Kerebos standard is that Slashdot doesn't delete or edit any posts. If Slashdot were to remove this article, it would remove one of their major points of defense in these two cases. So, leaving this article up is not only the morally right thing to do, it is also a legal necessity for Andover.
- All the old National Geographics that everybody seems to have collected for some strange reason?
- Maybe the Congressional Record or Internal Revenue Code? About time we got some good use out of those... Yeah, I know that they're not quite infinite yet, but just wait 'til next year!
- Perhaps the phone numbers of all the girls who won't go out with me?
- We could always store the coordinates of all the points on the perimiter of the Mandelbrot set.
- Of course, we could just load it up with the digits of pi or e, but that's kind of boring.
- The authoritative compliation of all the troll postings on Slashdot?
- We could always use the lyrics to "Infinite Bottles of Beer on the Wall", but after the first few hundred thousand bottles we'd probably be slurring too badly for anybody to understand it.
I'm pretty sure that I might have missed a source or two...If you ever try to train a dog to do tricks, you don't reward it for doing what you want by hitting it in a different place. At best, the dog will learn to ignore you. (Actually, positive rewards work a lot better than negative for training dogs, but the law isn't really set up for positive rewards.)
Guys/gals, put this one down as a typographical error before we start looking too petty, and let's start looking at the real substance of what the two sides are saying.
Put "partners" before first dot,
Then you go right in.
It gifts a cookie.
Ignore it if you want to--
No milk comes with it.
I might have to try
Installing this this weekend.
Wish me best of luck.
Everything I know about MP4s I learned through Google. Try M.I.T. for the standard document.
I love search engines...
You might try the XFree86 Font Deuglification Mini HOWTO for some help with the Netscape fonts. Although not perfect, it made quite a difference for me.