Einstein saw it as a huge mistake, but it wasn't. Current evidence suggests that the value of the cosmological constant is not zero, it's some small positive number. If Einstein had not put the cosmological constant in in the first place, we wouldn't have been able to assign a value to it. His blunder was the assumption of a static universe, not a cosmological constant. The cosmological constant was a leap of physical intuition -- it has a value other than Einstein thought it should have, but so what? He was obviously a bit smarter than most of us:-)
Ok It seems they proof the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate. But does/why it proof the dark energy existence ?
Because dark energy is defined as a substance (quantity, thing, whatever) that causes accelerated expansion of the universe.
It sounds goofy but this is legitimate in science, especially physics. For instance, what is a wave function? Well, it's the variation over time and space of "some quantity". What quantity? What IS it? We don't know, however, we can do math on it and arrive at specific predictions which are confirmed by experiment. Nobody to this day knows what "it is" with respect to the wave function, yet we all accept that it's a legitimate thing, mathematically at least.
It's not transparency, it's blame deflection. Transparency would be a discussion of HOW a single person operating a console could take down the entire infrastructure, not a discussion of who. I don't give a shit who. Saying "an employee fucked up" is finger-pointing and sounds like an attempt to step away from responsibility. It also implies that the internal "solution" to the problem is to fire some specific individual.
Transparency, which we do NOT see here, would be a discussion of HOW the data center was configured and HOW a single person at a keyboard could take the entire thing to the ground. Whether the guy's name is Winston or whatever I really don't give a crap.
... which is why you should always use the shift key to wake a display, and never enter.
Seriously, this is informative? Nothing against X0563511 but doesn't this go WITHOUT saying? Who the hell strikes enter to wake a machine?
I don't use shift, I use control, mainly because I work mostly with Windows machines and pressing shift five times in a row causes that stupid "Would you like to turn on sticky keys?" dialog to show up. You can actually play a stupid trick with this. There's no timeout on the press-shift-five-times counter, so you can press shift on a workstation FOUR times, then walk away, and the next guy who tries to wake up the machine by pressing shift will hear a stupid "tweeeeet" sound and see that damned dialog on the screen. Yes, that amuses me because I'm lame.
What technology exists that is still working or workable after centuries or millenia?
Roads? Maybe not the way we build them now, but the ancients sure knew how to build 'em. They might be buried, but all you do is uncover it and you've got the same road as a few thousand years ago.
Wanting to check twitter or TMZ is not a pressing need. A life in danger is.
You care so little for other people you're unwilling to grant them a second's access to a useful resource when it costs you nothing to do so, yet you expect me to believe you value their lives? Nope dude, you're posturing. Pretending. You're selfish, just be honest and admit it.
Maybe understanding is that these prisoners do not fall into any previously defined categoy. Are they prisoners of war or are they criminals? Should we apply our criminal law statutes to people who were detained by US soldiers in combat operations?
Well, you guys feel free to stand over in that corner chatting, going "Hmmm" and "Well this is interesting" and "My, this is a dilemma." Just figure out the answer soon, because the rest of us are getting seriously PISSED OFF. We're waiting on hold, but we do in fact expect you to get back on the line. And by the way, your on-hold music fucking sucks.
If you draw a Feynman diagram showing the annihilation of an electron with a positron, it looks like an electron which momentarily goes backward in time, and some photons shooting out. If you do the calculations, you get the right answer (the "answer" is the probability of it happening). That's really all you can say about it.
It's not really like an electron goes forward in time for a while, then decides to mix it up a little and turns around and goes backward in time. It's just that there's no way to distinguish a positron going forward in time and an electron going backward in time. Whether it "really happens" isn't a useful question to ask because it doesn't predict anything.
On a semi-related note, I remember reading that charge-reversal isn't the only property of antimatter; it can also be thought of like quantum spin-reversal or time-reversal (ordinary matter going backwards in time).
That's really the most correct way to think about it. Take the electron, for instance. It always repels other electrons, period. If you get an electron going backward in time, it still repels other electrons, but because time is flipped around it looks like an attraction. It is not just charge but ALL the properties of the particle which are reversed.
In the case of a neutron, imagine it not as a neutral particle but as an electric dipole (tripole really, but for simplicity imagine it's a dipole). When you get sufficiently far away from it, the net electric field is pretty much zero. It's not until you look at it very closely that you see the two opposite charges. Now, you can reverse those charges and still, at big distances it looks like there's no field. But you did in fact reverse the charges.
An anti-neutron is like a neutron, but instead of being composed of an up quark and two down quarks, it is composed of an anti-up quark and two anti-down quarks. Each of the quarks has an electrical charge -- they add in such a way that the sum is zero. For an anti-neutron, the quarks have the opposite charges as before, but they still all add to zero.
They hide data by splitting it into small pieces, writing it to disk in random order and marking that sector empty. Sounds like a disaster to me, all you need to do is to use the disk, just defrag it and your hidden data is gone.
This is called fragility, and depending on context, is a desired feature.
What sort of thought process leads to a stupid comment like this? Somebody creates a new plastic: "Congratulations, you've reinvented polymerization!" Somebody makes a better and faster computer chip: "Congratulations, you've reinvented computing!"
Everything is built on something else. For most of us, that's obvious. I guess not for some. For you, new ideas must leap fully formed from a different universe accompanied by a huge explosion in order to be interesting, I guess.
Because the LHC has been created, and funded, largely by "selling" the Higgs as a super-special "God particle". In fact it's nothing at all different than any one of the other particles in the standard model that were predicted and later found.
You see no value in proving the ultimate correctness or incorrectness of the entire Standard Model of physics? Do you want to sit back and say "Well, we've been right so far, so why dig deeper?" It doesn't matter to you whether we're completely wrong about everything?
Indeed, I am sick of this sort of behavior from the police. For instance, near my home they shot a 12 year old girl with a beanbag gun because she was being "unruly" and swinging at officers. They justified this by saying that the police need to maintain their own safety. This is about the biggest load I've ever heard. You're a cop -- your job is not safe. The reason you took this job is to protect others, not yourself. If you wanted a nice safe life you'd go into a safer business, like cleaning swimming pools. Instead we have armored thugs shooting little girls with beanbags because they're scared they might get punched in the eye. Buncha fucking pansies, whiners, and scaredy cats. Do your fucking jobs, assholes.
Moreover, if I'm running a data center, it's up to me how much I work at saving energy. If I'm getting it from a utility, I have a lot less ability to control how they get their power. Think globally and act locally, guys.
Why not act locally by virtualizing those ten servers you've got which all sit at 1% load all the time? It even saves money, incredible.
Feynman has talked a lot about the importance of openness in science. For example, at the end of "What do you care what other people think?" there is a praise of the scientific method that resonates well with Open Source. Therefore, putting Feynman's work behind the bars of Microsoft is particularly blasphemous.
Feynman probably would have agreed. In the very next sentence, he probably would have called you an idiot for not watching it anyway. In the Douglas Robb Memorial Lectures, Feynman was asked this question: "When you look at an object, do you see only light, or do you see the object." He answered by saying it was one of the "dopey philosophical questions" that he had no interest in. What all you people are doing is exactly the sort of "dopey philosophical" shit that Feynman hated. For fuck's sake, if you have the technical ability to watch the lectures, go watch them. Jesus. Then we can talk about science instead of Microsoft.
He has to prove nothing. Defendants do not need to prove their innocence. What he did was cast a reasonable doubt on the assertion that he was speeding. Could he have been speeding? Sure. Could he have been driving under the speed limit? Also possible. That's reasonable doubt, that's not guilty.
I really fear the day when defendants need to prove their innocence.
So upon a technical review, this guy should have lost this case.
Why? It casts reasonable doubt. Why do some people so easily forget that the burden of proof in the United States is on the prosecution? The guy didn't PROVE he wasn't speeding, he cast DOUBT on it. Ding ding, the justice machine says.... "not guilty." Notice that it doesn't say "innocent," it says "not guilty."
Exactly. Feynman loved to teach and he loved to educate. He would not appreciate people holding his teaching behinds artificial barriers. What a shame. I'd sad to see Feynman's legacy "owned" by people who are so inferior-minded and unimportant compared to him.
This doesn't even come close to "owning" Feynman's legacy. These are a small set of lectures, impressive for sure, out of thousands of lectures he gave over the course of his life. Before Microsoft picked up the rights to these, they were owned by Cornell, and the only way to see the lectures was to check the reels out of the library and play them on a projector. So if you're going to complain about media format, at least include the entire picture in your complaint.
Feynman himself would most likely call you a fool for refusing to watch his lectures because of ideological considerations. That was the sort of thing he hated most.
Psst, they'll all on YouTube, snipped up into 5-10 minute long pieces, but mostly all there. It's technically illegal, but hey, under your bizarre ideology maybe that's preferable. In any case, watch the things. They'll inspire you in ways I can't really explain. I've been watching them over and over for a long time and I've noticed that it's affecting the way I talk to people when I explain things to them. In a POSITIVE way.
Imagine that, somebody might subpoena you for evidence relevant to a legal dispute! Shocker!
A subpoena is a legal process and is not an invasion of your privacy. If you don't want it coming up in a court room, do not do it, say it, or write it down somewhere. Is this hard to grasp?
There's nothing surprising here anywhere for people who have actually thought aout this. Please refrain from confusing your ignorance with some kind of general human lack of expectation of this very result.
The fact that it is understood makes it no less immediately surprising. Intellectual elitism at its finest.
Gah. I didn't say that the right way, sorry. Intuitively, what I mean is that as m gets ever smaller and smaller the equality ma = GMm/r^2 continues to hold. In the limit as m goes to zero, both sides go to zero together, but that doesn't mean the acceleration must go to zero. I didn't state it right, I apologize.
Slashdot Mirror
Einstein saw it as a huge mistake, but it wasn't. Current evidence suggests that the value of the cosmological constant is not zero, it's some small positive number. If Einstein had not put the cosmological constant in in the first place, we wouldn't have been able to assign a value to it. His blunder was the assumption of a static universe, not a cosmological constant. The cosmological constant was a leap of physical intuition -- it has a value other than Einstein thought it should have, but so what? He was obviously a bit smarter than most of us :-)
Ok It seems they proof the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate. But does/why it proof the dark energy existence ?
Because dark energy is defined as a substance (quantity, thing, whatever) that causes accelerated expansion of the universe.
It sounds goofy but this is legitimate in science, especially physics. For instance, what is a wave function? Well, it's the variation over time and space of "some quantity". What quantity? What IS it? We don't know, however, we can do math on it and arrive at specific predictions which are confirmed by experiment. Nobody to this day knows what "it is" with respect to the wave function, yet we all accept that it's a legitimate thing, mathematically at least.
It's not transparency, it's blame deflection. Transparency would be a discussion of HOW a single person operating a console could take down the entire infrastructure, not a discussion of who. I don't give a shit who. Saying "an employee fucked up" is finger-pointing and sounds like an attempt to step away from responsibility. It also implies that the internal "solution" to the problem is to fire some specific individual.
Transparency, which we do NOT see here, would be a discussion of HOW the data center was configured and HOW a single person at a keyboard could take the entire thing to the ground. Whether the guy's name is Winston or whatever I really don't give a crap.
Seriously, this is informative? Nothing against X0563511 but doesn't this go WITHOUT saying? Who the hell strikes enter to wake a machine?
I don't use shift, I use control, mainly because I work mostly with Windows machines and pressing shift five times in a row causes that stupid "Would you like to turn on sticky keys?" dialog to show up. You can actually play a stupid trick with this. There's no timeout on the press-shift-five-times counter, so you can press shift on a workstation FOUR times, then walk away, and the next guy who tries to wake up the machine by pressing shift will hear a stupid "tweeeeet" sound and see that damned dialog on the screen. Yes, that amuses me because I'm lame.
What technology exists that is still working or workable after centuries or millenia?
Roads? Maybe not the way we build them now, but the ancients sure knew how to build 'em. They might be buried, but all you do is uncover it and you've got the same road as a few thousand years ago.
I still have my grandfather's old axe. The head's been replaced twice, and the shaft three times, but still the same axe.
Wanting to check twitter or TMZ is not a pressing need. A life in danger is.
You care so little for other people you're unwilling to grant them a second's access to a useful resource when it costs you nothing to do so, yet you expect me to believe you value their lives? Nope dude, you're posturing. Pretending. You're selfish, just be honest and admit it.
You're paranoid. I write commercial software too. People buy it. I get some money. Life goes on.
Maybe understanding is that these prisoners do not fall into any previously defined categoy. Are they prisoners of war or are they criminals? Should we apply our criminal law statutes to people who were detained by US soldiers in combat operations?
Well, you guys feel free to stand over in that corner chatting, going "Hmmm" and "Well this is interesting" and "My, this is a dilemma." Just figure out the answer soon, because the rest of us are getting seriously PISSED OFF. We're waiting on hold, but we do in fact expect you to get back on the line. And by the way, your on-hold music fucking sucks.
If you draw a Feynman diagram showing the annihilation of an electron with a positron, it looks like an electron which momentarily goes backward in time, and some photons shooting out. If you do the calculations, you get the right answer (the "answer" is the probability of it happening). That's really all you can say about it.
It's not really like an electron goes forward in time for a while, then decides to mix it up a little and turns around and goes backward in time. It's just that there's no way to distinguish a positron going forward in time and an electron going backward in time. Whether it "really happens" isn't a useful question to ask because it doesn't predict anything.
On a semi-related note, I remember reading that charge-reversal isn't the only property of antimatter; it can also be thought of like quantum spin-reversal or time-reversal (ordinary matter going backwards in time).
That's really the most correct way to think about it. Take the electron, for instance. It always repels other electrons, period. If you get an electron going backward in time, it still repels other electrons, but because time is flipped around it looks like an attraction. It is not just charge but ALL the properties of the particle which are reversed.
In the case of a neutron, imagine it not as a neutral particle but as an electric dipole (tripole really, but for simplicity imagine it's a dipole). When you get sufficiently far away from it, the net electric field is pretty much zero. It's not until you look at it very closely that you see the two opposite charges. Now, you can reverse those charges and still, at big distances it looks like there's no field. But you did in fact reverse the charges.
An anti-neutron is like a neutron, but instead of being composed of an up quark and two down quarks, it is composed of an anti-up quark and two anti-down quarks. Each of the quarks has an electrical charge -- they add in such a way that the sum is zero. For an anti-neutron, the quarks have the opposite charges as before, but they still all add to zero.
They hide data by splitting it into small pieces, writing it to disk in random order and marking that sector empty. Sounds like a disaster to me, all you need to do is to use the disk, just defrag it and your hidden data is gone.
This is called fragility, and depending on context, is a desired feature.
What sort of thought process leads to a stupid comment like this? Somebody creates a new plastic: "Congratulations, you've reinvented polymerization!" Somebody makes a better and faster computer chip: "Congratulations, you've reinvented computing!"
Everything is built on something else. For most of us, that's obvious. I guess not for some. For you, new ideas must leap fully formed from a different universe accompanied by a huge explosion in order to be interesting, I guess.
Because the LHC has been created, and funded, largely by "selling" the Higgs as a super-special "God particle". In fact it's nothing at all different than any one of the other particles in the standard model that were predicted and later found.
You see no value in proving the ultimate correctness or incorrectness of the entire Standard Model of physics? Do you want to sit back and say "Well, we've been right so far, so why dig deeper?" It doesn't matter to you whether we're completely wrong about everything?
Indeed, I am sick of this sort of behavior from the police. For instance, near my home they shot a 12 year old girl with a beanbag gun because she was being "unruly" and swinging at officers. They justified this by saying that the police need to maintain their own safety. This is about the biggest load I've ever heard. You're a cop -- your job is not safe. The reason you took this job is to protect others, not yourself. If you wanted a nice safe life you'd go into a safer business, like cleaning swimming pools. Instead we have armored thugs shooting little girls with beanbags because they're scared they might get punched in the eye. Buncha fucking pansies, whiners, and scaredy cats. Do your fucking jobs, assholes.
Moreover, if I'm running a data center, it's up to me how much I work at saving energy. If I'm getting it from a utility, I have a lot less ability to control how they get their power. Think globally and act locally, guys.
Why not act locally by virtualizing those ten servers you've got which all sit at 1% load all the time? It even saves money, incredible.
Feynman has talked a lot about the importance of openness in science. For example, at the end of "What do you care what other people think?" there is a praise of the scientific method that resonates well with Open Source. Therefore, putting Feynman's work behind the bars of Microsoft is particularly blasphemous.
Feynman probably would have agreed. In the very next sentence, he probably would have called you an idiot for not watching it anyway. In the Douglas Robb Memorial Lectures, Feynman was asked this question: "When you look at an object, do you see only light, or do you see the object." He answered by saying it was one of the "dopey philosophical questions" that he had no interest in. What all you people are doing is exactly the sort of "dopey philosophical" shit that Feynman hated. For fuck's sake, if you have the technical ability to watch the lectures, go watch them. Jesus. Then we can talk about science instead of Microsoft.
He has to prove the radar was wrong.
He has to prove nothing. Defendants do not need to prove their innocence. What he did was cast a reasonable doubt on the assertion that he was speeding. Could he have been speeding? Sure. Could he have been driving under the speed limit? Also possible. That's reasonable doubt, that's not guilty.
I really fear the day when defendants need to prove their innocence.
So upon a technical review, this guy should have lost this case.
Why? It casts reasonable doubt. Why do some people so easily forget that the burden of proof in the United States is on the prosecution? The guy didn't PROVE he wasn't speeding, he cast DOUBT on it. Ding ding, the justice machine says.... "not guilty." Notice that it doesn't say "innocent," it says "not guilty."
Beyond a reasonable doubt. Key phrase.
Exactly. Feynman loved to teach and he loved to educate. He would not appreciate people holding his teaching behinds artificial barriers. What a shame. I'd sad to see Feynman's legacy "owned" by people who are so inferior-minded and unimportant compared to him.
This doesn't even come close to "owning" Feynman's legacy. These are a small set of lectures, impressive for sure, out of thousands of lectures he gave over the course of his life. Before Microsoft picked up the rights to these, they were owned by Cornell, and the only way to see the lectures was to check the reels out of the library and play them on a projector. So if you're going to complain about media format, at least include the entire picture in your complaint.
Feynman himself would most likely call you a fool for refusing to watch his lectures because of ideological considerations. That was the sort of thing he hated most.
Psst, they'll all on YouTube, snipped up into 5-10 minute long pieces, but mostly all there. It's technically illegal, but hey, under your bizarre ideology maybe that's preferable. In any case, watch the things. They'll inspire you in ways I can't really explain. I've been watching them over and over for a long time and I've noticed that it's affecting the way I talk to people when I explain things to them. In a POSITIVE way.
Imagine that, somebody might subpoena you for evidence relevant to a legal dispute! Shocker!
A subpoena is a legal process and is not an invasion of your privacy. If you don't want it coming up in a court room, do not do it, say it, or write it down somewhere. Is this hard to grasp?
There's nothing surprising here anywhere for people who have actually thought aout this. Please refrain from confusing your ignorance with some kind of general human lack of expectation of this very result.
The fact that it is understood makes it no less immediately surprising. Intellectual elitism at its finest.
You are incorrect on several fronts. It is not damaging to the microwave
Then explain why it damaged the microwave. Theories are nice, they have to agree with experiment though.
Gah. I didn't say that the right way, sorry. Intuitively, what I mean is that as m gets ever smaller and smaller the equality ma = GMm/r^2 continues to hold. In the limit as m goes to zero, both sides go to zero together, but that doesn't mean the acceleration must go to zero. I didn't state it right, I apologize.