Really, an animal lover? Rather than asking whether you are either ignorant or a hypocrite, let me ask you two better questions: Have you ever been to the Humane Society? If so, do you still think you can call yourself an "animal lover" and feel this way about the legislation?
Anyone who's ever visited the Human Society knows that there are PLENTY of adorable (and unfortunately, many less so) animals that do not get nearly the amount of attention or care they deserve, are locked up in tiny cages, and are put down after a set period of time because they are effectively the used cars of the animal kingdom: Why get something used and imperfect when you can buy a new one with the exact specs you want from a dealer?
This has been the case for years now, and this type of legislation was seen as perfectly reasonable when applied to more violent or unwieldy breeds have already been specifically singled out for point-of-sale bans (they start cute in a pet store but then become a load of trouble when they grow up): http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/pit-bull-ban-considered-in-xenia. Pet shops produce them, and then they end up being put down in the Humane Society. Hell, there are people who've gone into depression from working there and having to put down so many animals.
As a fellow "animal lover", I'd like to know whether you'd be more for funneling more money, into building more cages, to keep more neglected (http://www.hssv.org/news_media-aggie-overcomes-depression.html) animals alive, alone, for a longer period of time, or just stopping this at the source.
I agree with ALL of your merits of the symbiotic relationships that grow from pet ownership, but the real issue is that there is not a shortage of pets on the market, just a shortage of fresh, young cute pets that spoiled--nay, ignorant and shortsighted--people want to have around up til a certain point.
After reading all these posts about wonky-but-nostalgic gameplay mechanics, I have to ask:
Are the two mighty feetses still there? I remember pressing the tick (tilde) key to use my left mighty foot, but could also hit the gun button to kick with my right mighty foot. For some odd reason these two feet would kick a bit off beat, and it was always satisfying to deliver into a JUMPING (with the third leg, of course) two-legged kick into an alien's chest.
My best educated guess is because oil and coal are not only lobbied by the industry players, but also by very powerful suppliers (look at prince bin Talal's short game of keeping oil just cheap enough that US doesn't build more fuel efficient cars).
Everyone's heard of BP, Chevron (This guy also in top 15 for coal in America), ExxonMobil, Shell, etc. But I can't even find an agreed upon list of names to put on a "Big Uranium" Top 5.
What's always disappointing is that even on/. people don't seem to understand the real nature of radiation: It's a poison. No less, but also _no more_. And many choose to focus on the latter to the point of hysteria.
It's always seen as some magical, invisible, and very scary entity that shouldn't exist anywhere near humanity, but consider that (m)any of the conventional (I willingly acknowledge the benefits of green energy, but also realistically acknowledge their shortcomings) sources of power we use today also create poisonous byproducts.
And sure radiation is not only poisonous, it's also a carcinogen! But yet again so are many of the (poisonous) by products of coal and oil burning plants. Heck, just read the back label of a quart of motor oil.
In addition, the recent Fukushima incident has sadly been compared to Chernobyl (1986), and TMI (1979), taking away attention from the real tragedy that caused the meltdown. But just sift through your own memory of how many recent coal mine collapses in that time (countless, so I'll just link it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident) or global environmental damage from tanker and oil rig accidents have occurred in those two decades, and you'll see that you'd actually be in favor of Nuclear Power if you cared about lives lost, or global environmental impact.
And how many poisonous chemical spills do you remember reading about in the news? It happens every year, has the same diffusion characteristics as poisonous radioactive particles, but gets absolutely squat media attention (aside from maybe the local news).
There are also reports of how Fukushima might have released double the amount of radiation than previously reported. Boy, this sounds scary. How does it compare to the fracking (not a curse word euphemism) that's managed to methanate drinking water in towns across America to the point of tap water being combustible?
I will admit: there is a huge gaping problem with Nuclear Waste. There's lost of it, it lasts forever (as far as we're concerned), it's sitting in temporary storage at the facilities that generated it, and nobody wants to be the final resting place of it (Yucca mountain fiasco). Yet it's manageable, and there are well proven reactions that can basically process/burn them down into much less dangerous/reactive compounds. But these techniques to reduce the waste, next generation plants that produce less waste, all of it never gets developed because of the public's immediate and irrational fear of the word "Nuclear".
I'm not saying people should be proponents of Nuclear just from reading this post, and if we could make hyper-efficient solar cells without generating the high-tech waste associated with processing so much silicon, I'd want to plaster the world in solar panels. But until that day comes, I'd prefer we judge nuclear power on its real scientific merits and demerits, and not on some "gut feeling" of how scary it is.
I know the article's short, but I kept reading and kept arriving at:
NASA spent 12 years and 36 missions, using space shuttles, to build a space shuttle landing dock. NASA uses the completed dock and takes a picture just before retiring the fleet.
Isn't that kind of like using a 2-seater to awkwardly haul cement and building materials from Lowes or HomeDepot to build yourself a driveway, taking forever to do it, and then selling your car once it's built and taking the (Russian) bus instead? Oh, and taking a picture of it too.
Sadly, I see absolutely no practical evidence for this in the modern era.
Some propaganda to the contrary, yes, but even 1984 had its "Freedom is slavery".
Ahh but see, my main emphasis is on complacency, which there is plenty of, and is what's most likely squashing any of these missing sentiments:
Look at Facebook and Google. There is always some modicum of unrest when they release any new features that further erode privacy standards. I'll agree that YES, they almost always get their way (aside from Google Buzz being annoying as hell and immediately rescinded), however the two main differences from those situations and this is:
1. FB and Google exist on the internets, and are basically free to anyone who can leech wifi. This hardware sounds like it would cost some $$$. 2. FB and Google offer services such as mind-numbing social brainfarting (guess which one!... granted this distinction is being blurred fast), and lots of well-made freely available cloud-based software.
My point in the first post was that there's a price (albeit a low one) for complacency, and in this situation the price will need to also cover the costs of additional hardware that really serves no other purpose.
Japan based NHK Science & Technology Research Laboratories (STRL) is testing an interface which observes TV viewers, determines their interest and provides information related to the TV program in accordance with the way they are watching it.
...
Though still in the development stage this could actually revolutionize how we watch TV and especially the advertisements.
It basically sounds like additional hardware (with enough resolution and processing power to discern multiple faces and possible reactions) on top of a TV, just to spam us with more distracting ads.
The only way I see this being even remotely commercially feasible (especially in an anti-big-brother society like America) is: 1. Either the advertisers shelling out for the extra cost for this hardware and paying an additional fee for this privilege 2. Making the additional benefits of such a device so great that users will actually want it.
The second option (albeit doubtful) would probably need it to be on par with a situation where the hardware was good enough to replace the Kinect, could interface with the Xbox, and was cheaper overall, or advertiser subsidized (to make up for the perceived -- possibly real -- loss of privacy w.r.t. the Kinect).
What is it with rich people doing more and more esoteric things in a desperate attempt to feel like they're either special or somehow experiencing more to life than the next guy? I'm a full-blown meat eater, I've cleaned and gutted my own fish like anyone who's fished properly, chopped the head off a chicken and held the neck over a sink so that when it tried to pull the headless chicken act all the squirty blood was aimed somewhere, and I wouldn't claim that's made me any closer to understanding sustainable anything.
Did he use every part of the pig he killed? Because pig hoof soup is actually a delicacy in many places. How about pig ears and pork rinds? If he really wanted to understand sustainable food he'd either be a vegetarian or eating insects (not a joke, as insects, being lower on the food chain, more readily convert vegetation into useful proteins. Just because killing a bunch of random shit didn't make me educated doesn't mean I couldn't do it by much less stupid channels).
This BS sounds about as effective as posting where you like to leave your purse as a status update to raise awareness for... whatever it was, probably sustainable eating habits.
Any astrophysicists (or at least postgrads) here to say how important or true this achievement really is?
The article (got to it prior Newton's First Law of./ effect) actually did quite a good job of addressing exactly that.
Takeaways were: -Missing mass (not dark matter, but matter which was seen to exist during creation of universe but is now someplace different) turns out to have migrated to filaments that span across the universe. -Claimed that astrophysicists have long postulated (~2 decades) that the mass had moved there, but that the imaging capabilities weren't able to resolve it. -Then in a fit of bipolar impetus, also went on to say how exciting a discovery this was for the community. -Finally acknowledged that most likely nothing useful (to mankind) will come of this discovery.
Is it possible that we can't find anti-matter because it's all in one place?
How would they be able to tell the anti-matter from matter?
In reverse order: Anti-matter and matter share the same mass, but different charge based on their antiquark composition. When matter and antimatter touch and combine, they annihilate each other and convert all of the mass into pure energy (photons). So one very easy way we can tell is basically, something that's as light as an electron but bends in the wrong way in a magnetic field as a normal electron would, or something as heavy as a proton doing the same thing. Even more interesting, aside from nuclear anti-particles (antiproton, neutron, electron), you can make anti-atoms (like antihydrogen: antiproton + antielectron) and one day maybe even anti-molecules. (This is tough because we generate anti-particles with very high energy nuclear reactions, but we can only create molecular compounds at very low energies where quantum mechanics can come into play so that we have actual bound [anti]electorns etc.)
As for why they can't all just be hiding in the same place: Since antiparticles effectively share the same properties (as far as we know! that's a very rough explanation of why people were hoping for a very deformed electron) as "normal" particles, for that theory to work we'd be effectively looking for a black hole, made completely of antiparticles, containing all the mass of the universe. Now that thought experiment aside, what's really more interesting is that if antiparticles really _are_ perfect mirrors of normal particles with only a charge difference (i.e. possibly needing to study antielectron sphericalness to verify), then many theories suggest that the entirety of the universe should have annihilated itself into pure photons a long time ago, with no mass being left over to make up what we know it is today. In fact, when a high energy photon interacts with matter and converts into matter, or when you have ZPE vacuum fluctuations, you're always creating both a particle and corresponding antiparticle (i.e. electron and antielectron).
So the big question people are basically trying to solve is three parts:
Matter and anti-matter share so many similar properties, they must have been created in equal proportions at the start of the known universe. Matter and anti-matter always annihilate into pure energy, which then can convert back into matter and anti-matter. Why has the universe not annihilated itself out of existence?
I'm somewhat confused as to how filing a motion for expedited discovery during a lawsuit doesn't count as "requesting" anything. Apple only stopped short of filing an injunction (something on the order of a CnD most likely).
Source: Any of the articles linked so far, including yours.
For all those devil's advocates out there that think it's still possible for the police to have ambivalent intentions behind this action...
Keep in mind that to actually do the most good, all they really need to do is look at locations of most accidents in previous years, and regulate driving upstream of that. It's just that of-course the cause of these accidents might be attributable to road conditions and not necessarily excessive speed.
The fact that they're paying money for this data of guaranteed speeders, rather than utilizing what's probably very well-compiled (by themselves!) and freely available information is very much so the investment in "6.???" before "7. Profit!"
Just watch as I re-extract half of all the data from every CD that the device has ever wiped from what was electroplated back onto the cathode...Secure, my butt!
The statement on the site warns that taking part in an illegal gambling business is a federal crime. “It is also a federal crime to knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling, credit, electronic fund transfers, or checks," the warning said.
Yeah! Don't these idiots know that this type of risky gambling behavior is only allowed for people's life savings and investments, and only to be done so by giant financial corporations who knowingly deceive the general public?!
According to the indictment, the offshore poker companies continued to operate in the U.S. despite...
And these guys are OFFSHORE and operating in our beloved US?!?! What kind of blatant hypocrisy is this. I miss the good old days of [right now] when home-grown companies like GE funnel the money they've earned to off-shore accounts and pay zero dollars in taxes on the money they made off of the American people with full support from the government. Who do these hypocritical poker bastards think they are!
Is there some way to objectively measure it? Number of patents, number of papers, what?
FTA:
An analysis of published research - one of the key measures of scientific effort - reveals an "especially striking" rise by Chinese science.
Chinese spending has grown by 20% per year since 1999, now reaching over $100bn, and as many as 1.5 million science and engineering students graduated from Chinese universities in 2006.
One key indicator of the value of any research is the number of times it is quoted by other scientists in their work. Although China has risen in the "citation" rankings, its performance on this measure lags behind its investment and publication rate.
Maybe the website can list "the patience to read TFA before asking redundant questions" as one of the metrics? Also duly noted that the last one says China still lags behind in number of citations normalized to investment/publications, but still clearly defines a metric.
In my opinion, keyboard and touchpad characteristics are probably the most important factors in PC laptops. Other than that, good internal hardware hardware is very cheap and similar among brands (Caveats being Intel chips tend to run a bit cooler for the same performance vs. AMD, and if you care about discrete video go for one that has that, otherwise ram and hard drives are easily accessible/upgradeable, but I'm sure other threads are covering that).
Keyboards: One of the main things about PC keyboards is the Ctrl vs. Fn key. You will find yourself using the Ctrl key very often (less so than in a mac since right click is built in, but still); it's generally more ergonomically comfortable to use the leftmost edge of your left hand to hit the ctrl button if that's where it's located. I know for many laptops I've purchased the Ctrl and Fn key are swapped, and getting to do anything like copy/paste ctrl + C, Ctrl + v, Ctrl + tab, ctrl + click, ctrl + whatever is a minor hand-cramp inducing PITA. If you like keyboard hotkeys, best advice is to find one with the Ctrl keys taking the spotlight.
Mice: Not only do the designs vary by quite a large bit between manufacturers as far as hardware implementation--Some that have one smooth metallic surface that only does tap response, some that have rough textured surfaces for tactile response, to Thinkpads with a nipple and touchpad and about six different ways to click and doubleclick--but it's also important to keep in mind that the mice action will almost NEVER feel as intuitive or as good as a Mac. The hardware is assembled from various OEM distributors, and depending on who they sourced their touchpad to and how good their driver development is, you will either get basic "scroll bars along edge of pad" functionality, or very poorly implemented pinch-zoom. On top of that, I have an Ideapad G-560 with a touchpad so insensitive slash oversensitive at exactly the wrong times you'd think it was steam driven. One HUGE annoyance is the cursor clicking to some random spot when your palm touches it while you're typing an essay. Have that happen a couple times and your document gets swiss cheesed with sentence fragments. Unless every review you read for the lappy you're about to get has no qualms about keyboard or touchpad, definitely try to poke around, maybe play solitaire to test out the tap-click-hold-drag functionality, and try typing a couple paragraphs in a word document to make sure the cursor doesn't go Ouija board on you.
One has to keep in mind, one of the main reasons these guys are being recruited is to design new algorithms that trade at (what used to be milli, but is now pushing) microsecond timescales. This is basically the plot device of Office Space on steroids and crack. If you look at how monetary return vs time in the market is these days, there's so much more money to be made based on exploiting microsecond fluctuations than actual long-term value of a stock, kind of killing the original point of the market.
Why does this matter? Because the government can just as easily "get money into serious research" as they can (I know, we need to stop using the R word, but still:) regulate Wall Street. I know that word sounds scary to many, but basically the problem is the government is too heavily lobbied by rich bastards and idiots alike to properly incentivize science and research right now (which has crap for funding anyway and gets it from the government). And on the other end, even though regulation sounds scary, it doesn't have the same connotation of stopping Capitalism as what Fox News would probably have you think. There's not much capitalistic creation that results from ripping off everyone to make yourself a buck, aside from making better methods of ripping people off, located closer to the place you want to rip them off at. http://www.interactivedata.com/index.php/productsandservices/content/id/Trading+Infrastructure+Services (Note the bullet about Proximity and Co-Location services)
Wall Street is stepping on everyone including the government and getting a free pass. Honestly I'm more surprised that people aren't finding this bullshit straight up illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Really, an animal lover? Rather than asking whether you are either ignorant or a hypocrite, let me ask you two better questions:
Have you ever been to the Humane Society?
If so, do you still think you can call yourself an "animal lover" and feel this way about the legislation?
Anyone who's ever visited the Human Society knows that there are PLENTY of adorable (and unfortunately, many less so) animals that do not get nearly the amount of attention or care they deserve, are locked up in tiny cages, and are put down after a set period of time because they are effectively the used cars of the animal kingdom: Why get something used and imperfect when you can buy a new one with the exact specs you want from a dealer?
This has been the case for years now, and this type of legislation was seen as perfectly reasonable when applied to more violent or unwieldy breeds have already been specifically singled out for point-of-sale bans (they start cute in a pet store but then become a load of trouble when they grow up): http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/pit-bull-ban-considered-in-xenia. Pet shops produce them, and then they end up being put down in the Humane Society. Hell, there are people who've gone into depression from working there and having to put down so many animals.
As a fellow "animal lover", I'd like to know whether you'd be more for funneling more money, into building more cages, to keep more neglected (http://www.hssv.org/news_media-aggie-overcomes-depression.html) animals alive, alone, for a longer period of time, or just stopping this at the source.
I agree with ALL of your merits of the symbiotic relationships that grow from pet ownership, but the real issue is that there is not a shortage of pets on the market, just a shortage of fresh, young cute pets that spoiled--nay, ignorant and shortsighted--people want to have around up til a certain point.
Yes, living in a pineapple no less!
Pfft, common misconception. We all know now that Spongebob lives in the rainforest, under a tree.
http://www.livescience.com/14626-spongebob-mushroom-species-fungus.html
After reading all these posts about wonky-but-nostalgic gameplay mechanics, I have to ask:
Are the two mighty feetses still there? I remember pressing the tick (tilde) key to use my left mighty foot, but could also hit the gun button to kick with my right mighty foot. For some odd reason these two feet would kick a bit off beat, and it was always satisfying to deliver into a JUMPING (with the third leg, of course) two-legged kick into an alien's chest.
Looks like they had to pay ... *puts on sunglasses*... an i 4 an i.
YYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
In light of recent developments ( http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/08/news/companies/oil_exxon/?hpt=hp_t2 ), this is obviously the perfect time for such a move!
</sarcasm--irony--28 days is considered significant? it's not like we're talking about a zombie outbreak here>
My best educated guess is because oil and coal are not only lobbied by the industry players, but also by very powerful suppliers (look at prince bin Talal's short game of keeping oil just cheap enough that US doesn't build more fuel efficient cars).
Everyone's heard of BP, Chevron (This guy also in top 15 for coal in America), ExxonMobil, Shell, etc. But I can't even find an agreed upon list of names to put on a "Big Uranium" Top 5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajor
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table10.html
What's always disappointing is that even on /. people don't seem to understand the real nature of radiation: It's a poison.
No less, but also _no more_. And many choose to focus on the latter to the point of hysteria.
It's always seen as some magical, invisible, and very scary entity that shouldn't exist anywhere near humanity, but consider that (m)any of the conventional (I willingly acknowledge the benefits of green energy, but also realistically acknowledge their shortcomings) sources of power we use today also create poisonous byproducts.
And sure radiation is not only poisonous, it's also a carcinogen! But yet again so are many of the (poisonous) by products of coal and oil burning plants. Heck, just read the back label of a quart of motor oil.
In addition, the recent Fukushima incident has sadly been compared to Chernobyl (1986), and TMI (1979), taking away attention from the real tragedy that caused the meltdown. But just sift through your own memory of how many recent coal mine collapses in that time (countless, so I'll just link it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident) or global environmental damage from tanker and oil rig accidents have occurred in those two decades, and you'll see that you'd actually be in favor of Nuclear Power if you cared about lives lost, or global environmental impact.
And how many poisonous chemical spills do you remember reading about in the news? It happens every year, has the same diffusion characteristics as poisonous radioactive particles, but gets absolutely squat media attention (aside from maybe the local news).
There are also reports of how Fukushima might have released double the amount of radiation than previously reported. Boy, this sounds scary. How does it compare to the fracking (not a curse word euphemism) that's managed to methanate drinking water in towns across America to the point of tap water being combustible?
I will admit: there is a huge gaping problem with Nuclear Waste. There's lost of it, it lasts forever (as far as we're concerned), it's sitting in temporary storage at the facilities that generated it, and nobody wants to be the final resting place of it (Yucca mountain fiasco).
Yet it's manageable, and there are well proven reactions that can basically process/burn them down into much less dangerous/reactive compounds. But these techniques to reduce the waste, next generation plants that produce less waste, all of it never gets developed because of the public's immediate and irrational fear of the word "Nuclear".
I'm not saying people should be proponents of Nuclear just from reading this post, and if we could make hyper-efficient solar cells without generating the high-tech waste associated with processing so much silicon, I'd want to plaster the world in solar panels. But until that day comes, I'd prefer we judge nuclear power on its real scientific merits and demerits, and not on some "gut feeling" of how scary it is.
I know the article's short, but I kept reading and kept arriving at:
NASA spent 12 years and 36 missions, using space shuttles, to build a space shuttle landing dock.
NASA uses the completed dock and takes a picture just before retiring the fleet.
Isn't that kind of like using a 2-seater to awkwardly haul cement and building materials from Lowes
or HomeDepot to build yourself a driveway, taking forever to do it, and then selling your car once it's
built and taking the (Russian) bus instead?
Oh, and taking a picture of it too.
"... an anti-big-brother society like America"
Sadly, I see absolutely no practical evidence for this in the modern era.
Some propaganda to the contrary, yes, but even 1984 had its "Freedom is slavery".
Ahh but see, my main emphasis is on complacency, which there is plenty of, and is what's most likely squashing any of these missing sentiments:
Look at Facebook and Google. There is always some modicum of unrest when they release any new features that further erode privacy standards.
I'll agree that YES, they almost always get their way (aside from Google Buzz being annoying as hell and immediately rescinded), however the two main differences from those situations and this is:
1. FB and Google exist on the internets, and are basically free to anyone who can leech wifi. This hardware sounds like it would cost some $$$.
2. FB and Google offer services such as mind-numbing social brainfarting (guess which one!... granted this distinction is being blurred fast), and lots of well-made freely available cloud-based software.
My point in the first post was that there's a price (albeit a low one) for complacency, and in this situation the price will need to also cover the costs of additional hardware that really serves no other purpose.
Japan based NHK Science & Technology Research Laboratories (STRL) is testing an interface which observes
TV viewers, determines their interest and provides information related to the TV program in accordance with the way they are watching it.
...
Though still in the development stage this could actually revolutionize how we watch TV and especially the advertisements.
It basically sounds like additional hardware (with enough resolution and processing power to discern
multiple faces and possible reactions) on top of a TV, just to spam us with more distracting ads.
The only way I see this being even remotely commercially feasible (especially in an anti-big-brother society like America) is:
1. Either the advertisers shelling out for the extra cost for this hardware and paying an additional fee for this privilege
2. Making the additional benefits of such a device so great that users will actually want it.
The second option (albeit doubtful) would probably need it to be on par with a situation where the hardware
was good enough to replace the Kinect, could interface with the Xbox, and was cheaper overall, or advertiser subsidized
(to make up for the perceived -- possibly real -- loss of privacy w.r.t. the Kinect).
What is it with rich people doing more and more esoteric things in a desperate attempt to feel like they're either special or somehow experiencing more to life than the next guy?
I'm a full-blown meat eater, I've cleaned and gutted my own fish like anyone who's fished properly, chopped the head off a chicken and held the neck over a sink so that when it tried to pull the headless chicken act all the squirty blood was aimed somewhere, and I wouldn't claim that's made me any closer to understanding sustainable anything.
Did he use every part of the pig he killed? Because pig hoof soup is actually a delicacy in many places. How about pig ears and pork rinds? If he really wanted to understand sustainable food he'd either be a vegetarian or eating insects (not a joke, as insects, being lower on the food chain, more readily convert vegetation into useful proteins. Just because killing a bunch of random shit didn't make me educated doesn't mean I couldn't do it by much less stupid channels).
This BS sounds about as effective as posting where you like to leave your purse as a status update to raise awareness for ... whatever it was, probably sustainable eating habits.
Any astrophysicists (or at least postgrads) here to say how important or true this achievement really is?
The article (got to it prior Newton's First Law of ./ effect) actually did quite a good job of addressing exactly that.
Takeaways were:
-Missing mass (not dark matter, but matter which was seen to exist during creation of universe but is now someplace different) turns out to have migrated to filaments that span across the universe.
-Claimed that astrophysicists have long postulated (~2 decades) that the mass had moved there, but that the imaging capabilities weren't able to resolve it.
-Then in a fit of bipolar impetus, also went on to say how exciting a discovery this was for the community.
-Finally acknowledged that most likely nothing useful (to mankind) will come of this discovery.
To the questions
Is it possible that we can't find anti-matter because it's all in one place?
How would they be able to tell the anti-matter from matter?
In reverse order:
Anti-matter and matter share the same mass, but different charge based on their antiquark composition. When matter and antimatter touch and combine, they annihilate each other and convert all of the mass into pure energy (photons). So one very easy way we can tell is basically, something that's as light as an electron but bends in the wrong way in a magnetic field as a normal electron would, or something as heavy as a proton doing the same thing.
Even more interesting, aside from nuclear anti-particles (antiproton, neutron, electron), you can make anti-atoms (like antihydrogen: antiproton + antielectron) and one day maybe even anti-molecules. (This is tough because we generate anti-particles with very high energy nuclear reactions, but we can only create molecular compounds at very low energies where quantum mechanics can come into play so that we have actual bound [anti]electorns etc.)
As for why they can't all just be hiding in the same place:
Since antiparticles effectively share the same properties (as far as we know! that's a very rough explanation of why people were hoping for a very deformed electron) as "normal" particles, for that theory to work we'd be effectively looking for a black hole, made completely of antiparticles, containing all the mass of the universe.
Now that thought experiment aside, what's really more interesting is that if antiparticles really _are_ perfect mirrors of normal particles with only a charge difference (i.e. possibly needing to study antielectron sphericalness to verify), then many theories suggest that the entirety of the universe should have annihilated itself into pure photons a long time ago, with no mass being left over to make up what we know it is today.
In fact, when a high energy photon interacts with matter and converts into matter, or when you have ZPE vacuum fluctuations, you're always creating both a particle and corresponding antiparticle (i.e. electron and antielectron).
So the big question people are basically trying to solve is three parts:
Matter and anti-matter share so many similar properties, they must have been created in equal proportions at the start of the known universe.
Matter and anti-matter always annihilate into pure energy, which then can convert back into matter and anti-matter.
Why has the universe not annihilated itself out of existence?
But more importantly, how much digits of pi would you need to describe this sphere accurately?
About three Libraries of Congress worth!
I'm somewhat confused as to how filing a motion for expedited discovery during a lawsuit doesn't count as "requesting" anything. Apple only stopped short of filing an injunction (something on the order of a CnD most likely).
Source:
Any of the articles linked so far, including yours.
I think it's even more impressive how TFA poses
The obvious question is how Apple can request to see products that haven’t been released yet...
without even remotely taking the time to follow through on their own motto of "Apple news, rumors, and analysis".
I don't see what all the fuss is about! I mean, as far as I can tell, the internet's 99% porn, isn't it...??
Slw Fngrs I Se?
For all those devil's advocates out there that think it's still possible for the police to have ambivalent intentions behind this action...
Keep in mind that to actually do the most good, all they really need to do is look at locations of most accidents in previous years, and regulate driving upstream of that. It's just that of-course the cause of these accidents might be attributable to road conditions and not necessarily excessive speed.
The fact that they're paying money for this data of guaranteed speeders, rather than utilizing what's probably very well-compiled (by themselves!) and freely available information is very much so the investment in "6.???" before "7. Profit!"
Just watch as I re-extract half of all the data from every CD that the device has ever wiped from what was electroplated back onto the cathode...Secure, my butt!
The statement on the site warns that taking part in an illegal gambling business is a federal crime. “It is also a federal crime to knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling, credit, electronic fund transfers, or checks," the warning said.
Yeah! Don't these idiots know that this type of risky gambling behavior is only allowed for people's life savings and investments, and only to be done so by giant financial corporations who knowingly deceive the general public?!
According to the indictment, the offshore poker companies continued to operate in the U.S. despite...
And these guys are OFFSHORE and operating in our beloved US?!?! What kind of blatant hypocrisy is this. I miss the good old days of [right now] when home-grown companies like GE funnel the money they've earned to off-shore accounts and pay zero dollars in taxes on the money they made off of the American people with full support from the government. Who do these hypocritical poker bastards think they are!
Is there some way to objectively measure it? Number of patents, number of papers, what?
FTA:
An analysis of published research - one of the key measures of scientific effort - reveals an "especially striking" rise by Chinese science.
Chinese spending has grown by 20% per year since 1999, now reaching over $100bn, and as many as 1.5 million science and engineering students graduated from Chinese universities in 2006.
One key indicator of the value of any research is the number of times it is quoted by other scientists in their work.
Although China has risen in the "citation" rankings, its performance on this measure lags behind its investment and publication rate.
Maybe the website can list "the patience to read TFA before asking redundant questions" as one of the metrics?
Also duly noted that the last one says China still lags behind in number of citations normalized to investment/publications, but still clearly defines a metric.
In my opinion, keyboard and touchpad characteristics are probably the most important factors in PC laptops. Other than that, good internal hardware hardware is very cheap and similar among brands (Caveats being Intel chips tend to run a bit cooler for the same performance vs. AMD, and if you care about discrete video go for one that has that, otherwise ram and hard drives are easily accessible/upgradeable, but I'm sure other threads are covering that).
Keyboards:
One of the main things about PC keyboards is the Ctrl vs. Fn key. You will find yourself using the Ctrl key very often (less so than in a mac since right click is built in, but still); it's generally more ergonomically comfortable to use the leftmost edge of your left hand to hit the ctrl button if that's where it's located. I know for many laptops I've purchased the Ctrl and Fn key are swapped, and getting to do anything like copy/paste ctrl + C, Ctrl + v, Ctrl + tab, ctrl + click, ctrl + whatever is a minor hand-cramp inducing PITA. If you like keyboard hotkeys, best advice is to find one with the Ctrl keys taking the spotlight.
Mice:
Not only do the designs vary by quite a large bit between manufacturers as far as hardware implementation--Some that have one smooth metallic surface that only does tap response, some that have rough textured surfaces for tactile response, to Thinkpads with a nipple and touchpad and about six different ways to click and doubleclick--but it's also important to keep in mind that the mice action will almost NEVER feel as intuitive or as good as a Mac. The hardware is assembled from various OEM distributors, and depending on who they sourced their touchpad to and how good their driver development is, you will either get basic "scroll bars along edge of pad" functionality, or very poorly implemented pinch-zoom. On top of that, I have an Ideapad G-560 with a touchpad so insensitive slash oversensitive at exactly the wrong times you'd think it was steam driven. One HUGE annoyance is the cursor clicking to some random spot when your palm touches it while you're typing an essay. Have that happen a couple times and your document gets swiss cheesed with sentence fragments.
Unless every review you read for the lappy you're about to get has no qualms about keyboard or touchpad, definitely try to poke around, maybe play solitaire to test out the tap-click-hold-drag functionality, and try typing a couple paragraphs in a word document to make sure the cursor doesn't go Ouija board on you.
One has to keep in mind, one of the main reasons these guys are being recruited is to design new algorithms that trade at (what used to be milli, but is now pushing) microsecond timescales. This is basically the plot device of Office Space on steroids and crack. If you look at how monetary return vs time in the market is these days, there's so much more money to be made based on exploiting microsecond fluctuations than actual long-term value of a stock, kind of killing the original point of the market.
Why does this matter? Because the government can just as easily "get money into serious research" as they can (I know, we need to stop using the R word, but still:) regulate Wall Street. I know that word sounds scary to many, but basically the problem is the government is too heavily lobbied by rich bastards and idiots alike to properly incentivize science and research right now (which has crap for funding anyway and gets it from the government). And on the other end, even though regulation sounds scary, it doesn't have the same connotation of stopping Capitalism as what Fox News would probably have you think. There's not much capitalistic creation that results from ripping off everyone to make yourself a buck, aside from making better methods of ripping people off, located closer to the place you want to rip them off at. http://www.interactivedata.com/index.php/productsandservices/content/id/Trading+Infrastructure+Services (Note the bullet about Proximity and Co-Location services)
Wall Street is stepping on everyone including the government and getting a free pass. Honestly I'm more surprised that people aren't finding this bullshit straight up illegal.
The company said users in the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, and Fiji were also affected.
Next week's headline:
"In unrelated news, local unrest reported in the tropics..."