Hi, I mostly agree but I have just one gripe with your post:
You seem to apply the same logic (so to speak) than those offended people since you reach the same conclusion ("they are called 'scum'")
Whenever I see the news here that is one of the things that saddens me most in this whole affair: that those people choose to feel offended by something that was so obviously not directed to them it makes me feel those particular youngsters are beyond any hope, which is truly sad.
I mean, come on, when it was said 'we are going to clean the sburbs off this scum' do you really think what was meant was 'we will are going to strike donw on everyone there since they are all scum' ?
The scum was obviously refering to the drug dealers and other crime perpetrators. When I hear in the interviews the kids saying "he's saying we are scum" I am puzzled... are they admitting they are drug dealers and they don't like being called scum (oh well, in this case apologies, from now on it will be 'dear sir criminal') or are they so immensely deprived of any thinking capability (since some of them try to express this fact as the result of a laughable 'reasoning' it's halas not too unlikely), or they just choose to take offense because they are bored, they want to have fun bringing disorder and use this as a pretext.
To me it's one of those last two, I am not too sure about which one, probably both.
But in your case ? (maybe I am wrong and just missed some more explicit garbage talking from those politicians ?)
You are partly right I suppose in this analysis where you state that their being out of town is the problem I guess because it sounds like a good explanation of how Marseilles is just the same yet different in this aspect.
However, it is wrong to suggest that this housing was built to segregate immigrants. This housing was built to accomodate poor people wherever they come from. I know, most of my family lives there.
My original (so to speak) family is typical white christian blahblah, and we have been in constant contact with those segregated immigrants since, well, it looks like we were segregated with them together with so many other different cultures. What is however true is that most people there are north african immigrants. But it is mostly due to the fact that they immigrate massively, reproduce massively once there too and certainly don't have any more mean than my sibblings to move away.
Anyway, as a result, we have many friends that don't consider themselves segregated at all last time i checked, and in fact, about half my family now is north african since we cross_married a lot.
What happens in these subburbs is, just like you would expect it, there is a lot of crime because there are many poor young people that are too often the product of a necesity to get more social help, but won't receive any particular education or parental care whatsoever. this is not specific to african immigrants (my french white neighbors do the same), it's just that it's several orders of magnitude more common.
What is truly sad is that, indeed, crime is high, mostly perpetrated by african immigrants (but not because they are african immigrants and therefore more entitled to it, just because they are predominent in those prone to crime areas) and it is almost impossible not to relate one to the other. This immediately sounds like racism and (most) french politicians are terrified by the word 'racist'. They would tolerate just about anything in order not to be called racists. So policemen won't be too harsh for a while (because they were facing severe criticism 'you only arrest african immigrants', 'you discriminate' blablabla) until it gets out of hands...
I understand your point and you are right I think,
But it wasn't an hostility toward religion that motivated this.
Until then wearing religious signs had not been a problem (is still not, really).
The problem comes down to the impracticality of some of those symbols. What if I worship Xo-Chipili and my belief is that I must wear a Moctezuma's like "penacho" as long as the sun shines over my head ?
Well actualy noone will prevent me from doing this "wherever apropriate", but that excludes school where I can be a nuisance for other people.
It started with something much less a nuisance of course:), but the idea was basically the same, for years students have been required (more or less (and less and less) vigorously not to wear anything on their heads as it is unrespectful, and respect/social behavior is an important part of the teaching). It turns out some people's religion prevented them to do that, and allowing them to not do it while still making the others would be unfair, on which matter a point was made that since this is a laic school, specific religious beliefs cannot go above a general rule imposed to all others.
To make a greater point on this being based on this principle and not on a specific relgion's exclusion, it has been generalized to 'all religious symbols', again, in order to be fair on the 'specific target' (so to speak).
In a sense, it wasn't hostility to religion that motivated this move, but it was in fact a specific religion's hostility to the teaching environment that did, and the response was to prevent anything else that could come from any religion to create such a problem from now on.
I see what you mean, but, from Outlook,
send a contact or a schedule email. (you can do that easily from your it by right clicking the relevant thing).
It will send an email that anyone can fetch with pop3 or imap, but that isn't too nice to look at if you read it with thunderbird.
That's why I was suggesting comments like "your schedule is unreadable"
Or perhaps he plans to do simple things like scheduling meetings, sending contacts and doesn't want to hear things like "I don't understand your attachment file" or "your proposed schedule is unreadable".
mail for instance. (ok actually it would be the term you run it on)
I am not playing with that stuff anymore and I never did anything nasty when I did play with it, but at school, we did some nice tricks involving just terminal escape sequences.
So you read a mail from your xterm, rxvt or whatever term you have, and you can do very nasty stuff to yourself like
- make the window flash
- change colours
- change the terminal title...
so far, so good, childish jokes but on certain terminals you can do much better:
- *ask* for the terminal title !! (you know, the one you just set !)
the title will insert itself at prompt, you only have to make it print invisibly and ask the user to hit enter, there are many ways to do it.
- Even better, you can add/modify menu entries and probably execute them as well (I never went past doing funny flashy things anyway, but looking at the terms escape sequences let you imagine what could be done)
Well maybe today on Linux mail filters out escape sequences, or maybe most terminals emulators refuse to execute them.
To be pedantic, and disregarding the fact that 'damage' is or is not the way to describe it,
I think you should say that it has been brought to that value, not multiplied by it (unless 20 years ago there was only one user; in which case it is also true)
Ave Cesar,
I mean Hola Carlos:)
Be fair and look at what he says and the kind of answers he gets
He isn't claiming that dynamic complex systems are a matter of children, but that assuming the temperature shift happens (measurements say it does, but explaining it well is in certainly the realm of complex dynamic systems studies), then you just have to look at the globe to see how it would reduce usable land, and that part is simple intuitive geometry well in the realm of (I hope) primary school. (you don't have to come up with the exact equation to see that the further you go up, the faster your usable area shrinks.
If this is a god that gave us free will because he wanted to see what choices we would make, and who works in mysterious ways, that usually appear to be no intervention at all, then why wouldn't such a being, having infinite patience, just watch, to see what evolves?
Well of course, but from here, why is he not blue with pink stars ?
This is a silly question (mine) but you can see that whether or not he is blue (besides having done everything else you suggest) has no bearing at all on this theory, let alone on our day to day lives.
What if I start preaching there is a paralel universe with no connection at all with ours where laws of physics are slightly different and FTL travel is possible and what not... In this disconnected universe people just like us, more advanced than us follow certain rules that you may or may not find reasonable to follow in their or our universe.
That's fine,of course, but you shouldn't let me force it on you as a truth you must agree on, much less let me take from you valueable teaching resources (like time, monney..) in order to teach you this as truth, and you shouldn't let me use this fine example of a succesful life in a parralel universe as a mean to dictate you how you should behave...
Everybody seems so obsessed by that parabolic requirement for the thing to work, and the difficulties to create such a huge parabola.
I suspect Archimedes didn't bother with it at all..
You can engineer a parabola in order to use its focal properties if it is your conveignence (it often is when you just one (continuous compact) object), but what if it isn't ?
Archmides could just have well engineered the solution focusing (no pun intended) on the individual mirror point of view.
Imagine that the weapon isn't the array of mirrors, but in fact each mirror.
The design is so that it is polished enough and flat enough, with a frame that allows its operator to aim very precisely a reflected beam of the sun in a given direction. (say mounting on the frame things like orthogonal sticks and instructions on how to 'read the shadows' to be able to align it)
The second part of it would be to have many of them all pointing at the same target, and they will naturaly draw a parabola as a consequence (and that's not even necessary (that will happen if they wish to all be very close to each other so as to form a single surface),they can be spread as they wish in fact, at different heigths, depths etc.).
It might be good as 'beter than nothing',
but this is not good as 'the correct answer to the problem'
We have two algorithms not statisfactory enough one with n bits, the other with p.
we check 'both'. well that could just be called a new algorithms of length n+p.
As an algorithm, its strength over any of the other 2 is that it generates longer hashes, but in the domain of n+p bits hashes, it starts with a severe handicap since it is easily 'divisible'.
(in two separate algorithms to work on to better work an attack, for instance, if you want to search a hash similar to this one, you can already start by just looking the md5 part and as long as this one fails, you can discard, therefore attacking far more effetively than you could do with a properly engineered n+p bits algorithm).
Plus the proper weaknesses of both of its parts certainly must make for clever ways to attack it once both parts are better 'cracked' (might not be true, but I don't think there's an obvious reason for it to be false either).
In any case, I think it's fairly obvious that it would just be a poor n+p algorithm (but yes, of course, it would be better than just 'this n' or just 'this p', but if the weaknesses found leads to better exploits, this n+p could very well be worse than some entirely different (just) n or p algorithms)
The card itself is just an antena powering an embedded 'tag'
The power it will be able to get and partly send back will be function of the field it is in.
That field will be generated by the reader and, of course, different readers have different capabilities.
I have installed several types and while most of them are 5 to 12 cms range, there are some that work at meter range.
A coakroach ?
Well, where was that ? I believe you, really, but I never saw any myself and I've been living in France about 20 years...
Anyway bottled water is kind of a luxury, people buy it because they can, not because they need to.
Most people I know drink from the tap and I drink both from the tap or botteled water.
Thing is, water has its particular taste and you get used to it, I prefer it from the tap (depending on where I am) than from several brands of bottled water for instance, but I preffered it from botteled water than from any tap for those other brands...
No, thats not the reason.
Just like you don't hate them for their religious grounds and seemingly antique view on philosophy.
It just makes it easier to hate them because of this "obvious nonsense" (for one particular point of view).
But would you hate that much amazonian tribes with weird religious beliefs and prehistoric practices ?
I don't think s. however, if they were to suddenly rely on some of your properties to the point they'd be compelled to push you, maybe make you poor as a side effect if they are powerful enough.
But it would just be a side effect of their way of life !
Now would you hate them for believing in whatever they believ in or for interefering with you in believing so ?
but wouldn't it be much easier to hate them because of those weird belifs instead of because of those 'side effects' ?
Well first ou have to realize that those tests rely heavily on statistics
You know, those statisics that work best if you believe in them.
Then you realize that when they tested the placebo effect, maybe they were ectually testing the testers ?
Will the tester actually reach a conclusion ?
They would if hey believed in their placebo/statistics techniques.
Will that be the same conclusion an external observer would reach ?
Since the overall conclusion is that the placebo effect is "controversial", I guess we can safely conclude that the placebo effect cannot explain the placebo effect, it is thus not complete.
They should have called this study the tagel-gödel experiment.
Of course, but that's not the issue
In your analogy, the problem would be, Honda complaining at google because google sold the word "Honda" to Porsche.
Porsche could get out of his way to make sure everytime Honda is mentioned somewhere, a Porsche ad should be near.
Even on google, by any (legal) mean they could think of. And I don't think there would be any problme with that.
The problem in this case is that google openly sells to Porsche the word "Honda" as a trigger for a Porsche ad. instead of say, "car", "coupé",..
Even if the end result isn't wrong in itself (showing Porsche ads to people apparently looking for a Honda),
The (illegal) fact remains that google "sold" the Honda name. It made monney (by selling adwords) using a trademarked name.
Whether or not that particular point is stupid or not can be an interesting debate, but you are aguing for something different.
Frankly, I think a better way to deal with that kind of behavior so that (hopefully) everyone would be hapy, would be to let Honda license their trademark for google adwords.
This way google could sell the adword Honda to Porsche or whoever, but each time, Honda would get a cut on the deal.
I'm not sure you will be able to see this answer as an AC,
but thank's a lot for your own answer anyway, it really helped me.
The problem is that I (obviously) don't know well the problems here, and I thought that the twin paradow was not that the twins have a different age in itself.
But the fact that you could determine which one is really aging.
I mean that, if we forget about the acceleration/deceleration parts, during most of the trip, each twin can observe the other one as moving fast compared to himself.
If they don't have previous knowledge of who started accelerating, they can both apply he same (SR) equations to evaluate the other one's aging rate.
But, when meeting, one of them would be right, and the other one would be wrong, ie: one of them was really "the one moving relatively to the other"
I understand I am not being clear at all, I'm sorry, but your answer was generic enough that it took care of both answering what the twin paradox really is about, plus my own problem with the explanations I have seen of it (since I was appparently looking for something else in the "paradox")
the last part of my post is this:
at bigbang time (right before), all particles
have zero speed relative to each other:
they are all tied together.
then they move away from each other, and from the
mass center of the explosion.
So, from this point you can see what could be an
absolute reference frame, or a prefered direction.
The problem is, how do you find it ?
How do you know which particles are not moving with reference to that point, and thus have zero speed ?
Plus, it shouldn't be even possible, since you shouldn't be able to diferentiate wether the other point, or yourself is moving.
(but, and that's where I was seeing the paradox,
we see that, indeed, one particle up to today has been accelerating in different directions thorought its existence until the time where you have come to observe it, and yourself (as a particle) have been subject to a different sequence of accelerations that put you at this point in a different "absolute" state)
But clearly, there is a difference after all,
or at meeting time, the twins wouldn't have different ages.
My point was that maybe we could find another "signature" for any particle that could tell its age (since bigbang) and aging rate, and that would lead us to know what is its absolute speed.
That's because you are thinking of an homogeneous compound.
In this particular case, someone is wishing to include the fixed size of the energy extractor as part of the whole system in order to evaluate energy density.
Since this fixed part is big enough and brings zero energy by itself (it needs the fuel), it is clear that the bigger your reservoir, the higher density you will get.
Approaching infinity (very big fuel tanks !) you will approach the density of the fuel itself as the (now small) extractor part will get negligible.
why does this difference has an effect over the time both objects move at constant speed ?
The ship accelerates first, then during so long as it will be at constant speed the aging process wil take place.
it will then accelerates back toward earth and again, aging will happen during the way back.
it will accelerates again to match earth's speed and land.
if it went a bit farther before coming back, the age differences shouldbe greater because we would apply the formula on the time of travel at constant speed. (neglecting the comparatively very short accelerating parts of the trip).
Hw is it that accelerating "changes" who is aging like a magical switch ?.
at one point in time, you don't have information on wether earth or the ship is moving.
how should you know some accelerations took place long before that imply that you must choose one
object instead of the other to apply the "aging formula" ?
instead of the earth, let's make that a second ship.
have the first ship "leave" the second one at incredible speed. (very short mighty acceleration)
go "round the universe" and come back without having to be subjected to any other acceleration than the final stage where it would match the second ship speed to meet again.
same conditions, but we omit two accelerations.
how does that affect results and why ?
when the ship "comes back" let's not have it accelerate. instead, the other ship will do that to match speeds and meet.
what do they observe ?
in the end, which accelerations the ship are submitted to have influence on "future" equations handling (in the way that you will know which point you can choose as the one "that is really moving compared to the other").
Simpler:
make the two ships get away from each others and come back together.
this way both see 'the other guy' affected by aging, and what happens when they meet back ?
if they travel the universe around, oes it make a difference when they cross each other ?
The problem I have with this faq's short way of solving the process is that, as do all the other faqs I found, it just says:
"here, this object accelerates here and there !
so this is the difference that explains why the twins end with one older than the other although they were both moving relatively to each other".
This doesn't explain anything at all, it shows that maybe this is where the explanation lies, but it's not an explanation in itself.
for that matter, they could paint ships different colors and say "here, they have different colors,
that must explain why they behave differently".
I don't doubdt there is a valid explanation there, and I would just love to see it (if you have it, please help me). but this faq just doesn't show it to me.
Also, I have troubles actually believing that something truely exists here because it breaks relativity in saying that there are, in the end,
absolute things.
if we see an object moving pass us.
which one is moving ?
there shouldn't be any difference, but, according to the faq explanation, there must be !
we don't have handy twins to show which one is different, but there still must be one, and it must be measurable.
In the end, if we start from big bang, every particles are related to each others like the twins. they have the same zero speed basis. if we take any two of them at a point, they follow different paths, get subject to different accelertions, and start behaving differently.
when they meet back, they could know which one of them is really moving relatively to the other.
Another way to look at it is,
since I could know which one of those two points were "the one moving" relatively to the other because of a simple luck of having twins available for the test,
I think I could just as well find simpler tests to verify when looking at any two objects which one is "really moving relatively to the other".
Since I can do that for any two objects, I can know, in the end, what is the absolute speed of any object. That doesn't sound right I suppose,
so if YAAA, maybe you can give me this explanation I miss ?
(again, I don't claim this is wrong, I just don't take the simple argument as enough and give expamples of why it disturbs me)
I think you don't understand because you assume that this expansion couldn't have been faster than light.
This isn't necessarily true, and indeed, it looks like it was quite faster than that.
It's possible because space expansion isn't actually matter moving, so it isn't restricted to lightspeed limitations at all.
No
It's like saying "it's better to hear that than being deaf"
It does let room to imagine there might be worse things to be heard then, since you could in those case even prefer to be deaf.
But since you raise the very idea of being deaf instead, you give an "estimate" of how bad the situation actualy is.
It's just a construct, a bit like saying "not bad" instead of "good", but not quite.
You say "well, I could care less", and it sounds like you actualy had to think about that very idea: "could I care even less ? let's see.. well.. yeah I imagine I could care even less" (that's always true anyway)
So it is, in fact, more powerful than just saying "I couldn't care less" since just saying that is false and less valueable since evidently less thoughtful.
I could go in lengthy proofs of why you can *always* care less about something than you do at a specified moment, but I really think you couldn't care less about it:)
Slashdot Mirror
Hi, I mostly agree but I have just one gripe with your post:
You seem to apply the same logic (so to speak) than those offended people since you reach the same conclusion ("they are called 'scum'")
Whenever I see the news here that is one of the things that saddens me most in this whole affair: that those people choose to feel offended by something that was so obviously not directed to them it makes me feel those particular youngsters are beyond any hope, which is truly sad.
I mean, come on, when it was said 'we are going to clean the sburbs off this scum' do you really think what was meant was 'we will are going to strike donw on everyone there since they are all scum' ?
The scum was obviously refering to the drug dealers and other crime perpetrators. When I hear in the interviews the kids saying "he's saying we are scum" I am puzzled... are they admitting they are drug dealers and they don't like being called scum (oh well, in this case apologies, from now on it will be 'dear sir criminal') or are they so immensely deprived of any thinking capability (since some of them try to express this fact as the result of a laughable 'reasoning' it's halas not too unlikely), or they just choose to take offense because they are bored, they want to have fun bringing disorder and use this as a pretext.
To me it's one of those last two, I am not too sure about which one, probably both.
But in your case ? (maybe I am wrong and just missed some more explicit garbage talking from those politicians ?)
Oh, sorry then... I misunderstood your post.
You are partly right I suppose in this analysis where you state that their being out of town is the problem I guess because it sounds like a good explanation of how Marseilles is just the same yet different in this aspect.
However, it is wrong to suggest that this housing was built to segregate immigrants. This housing was built to accomodate poor people wherever they come from. I know, most of my family lives there.
My original (so to speak) family is typical white christian blahblah, and we have been in constant contact with those segregated immigrants since, well, it looks like we were segregated with them together with so many other different cultures. What is however true is that most people there are north african immigrants. But it is mostly due to the fact that they immigrate massively, reproduce massively once there too and certainly don't have any more mean than my sibblings to move away.
Anyway, as a result, we have many friends that don't consider themselves segregated at all last time i checked, and in fact, about half my family now is north african since we cross_married a lot.
What happens in these subburbs is, just like you would expect it, there is a lot of crime because there are many poor young people that are too often the product of a necesity to get more social help, but won't receive any particular education or parental care whatsoever. this is not specific to african immigrants (my french white neighbors do the same), it's just that it's several orders of magnitude more common.
What is truly sad is that, indeed, crime is high, mostly perpetrated by african immigrants (but not because they are african immigrants and therefore more entitled to it, just because they are predominent in those prone to crime areas) and it is almost impossible not to relate one to the other. This immediately sounds like racism and (most) french politicians are terrified by the word 'racist'. They would tolerate just about anything in order not to be called racists. So policemen won't be too harsh for a while (because they were facing severe criticism 'you only arrest african immigrants', 'you discriminate' blablabla) until it gets out of hands...
I understand your point and you are right I think, :), but the idea was basically the same, for years students have been required (more or less (and less and less) vigorously not to wear anything on their heads as it is unrespectful, and respect/social behavior is an important part of the teaching). It turns out some people's religion prevented them to do that, and allowing them to not do it while still making the others would be unfair, on which matter a point was made that since this is a laic school, specific religious beliefs cannot go above a general rule imposed to all others.
But it wasn't an hostility toward religion that motivated this.
Until then wearing religious signs had not been a problem (is still not, really).
The problem comes down to the impracticality of some of those symbols. What if I worship Xo-Chipili and my belief is that I must wear a Moctezuma's like "penacho" as long as the sun shines over my head ?
Well actualy noone will prevent me from doing this "wherever apropriate", but that excludes school where I can be a nuisance for other people.
It started with something much less a nuisance of course
To make a greater point on this being based on this principle and not on a specific relgion's exclusion, it has been generalized to 'all religious symbols', again, in order to be fair on the 'specific target' (so to speak).
In a sense, it wasn't hostility to religion that motivated this move, but it was in fact a specific religion's hostility to the teaching environment that did, and the response was to prevent anything else that could come from any religion to create such a problem from now on.
I see what you mean, but, from Outlook, send a contact or a schedule email. (you can do that easily from your it by right clicking the relevant thing).
It will send an email that anyone can fetch with pop3 or imap, but that isn't too nice to look at if you read it with thunderbird.
That's why I was suggesting comments like "your schedule is unreadable"
Or perhaps he plans to do simple things like scheduling meetings, sending contacts and doesn't want to hear things like "I don't understand your attachment file" or "your proposed schedule is unreadable".
I am not playing with that stuff anymore and I never did anything nasty when I did play with it, but at school, we did some nice tricks involving just terminal escape sequences. So you read a mail from your xterm, rxvt or whatever term you have, and you can do very nasty stuff to yourself like
- make the window flash
- change colours
- change the terminal title...
so far, so good, childish jokes but on certain terminals you can do much better:
- *ask* for the terminal title !! (you know, the one you just set !)
the title will insert itself at prompt, you only have to make it print invisibly and ask the user to hit enter, there are many ways to do it.
- Even better, you can add/modify menu entries and probably execute them as well (I never went past doing funny flashy things anyway, but looking at the terms escape sequences let you imagine what could be done)
Well maybe today on Linux mail filters out escape sequences, or maybe most terminals emulators refuse to execute them.
To be pedantic, and disregarding the fact that 'damage' is or is not the way to describe it,
I think you should say that it has been brought to that value, not multiplied by it (unless 20 years ago there was only one user; in which case it is also true)
Ave Cesar, :)
I mean Hola Carlos
Be fair and look at what he says and the kind of answers he gets
He isn't claiming that dynamic complex systems are a matter of children, but that assuming the temperature shift happens (measurements say it does, but explaining it well is in certainly the realm of complex dynamic systems studies), then you just have to look at the globe to see how it would reduce usable land, and that part is simple intuitive geometry well in the realm of (I hope) primary school. (you don't have to come up with the exact equation to see that the further you go up, the faster your usable area shrinks.
This is a silly question (mine) but you can see that whether or not he is blue (besides having done everything else you suggest) has no bearing at all on this theory, let alone on our day to day lives.
What if I start preaching there is a paralel universe with no connection at all with ours where laws of physics are slightly different and FTL travel is possible and what not... In this disconnected universe people just like us, more advanced than us follow certain rules that you may or may not find reasonable to follow in their or our universe.
That's fine,of course, but you shouldn't let me force it on you as a truth you must agree on, much less let me take from you valueable teaching resources (like time, monney..) in order to teach you this as truth, and you shouldn't let me use this fine example of a succesful life in a parralel universe as a mean to dictate you how you should behave...
Everybody seems so obsessed by that parabolic requirement for the thing to work, and the difficulties to create such a huge parabola.
I suspect Archimedes didn't bother with it at all..
You can engineer a parabola in order to use its focal properties if it is your conveignence (it often is when you just one (continuous compact) object), but what if it isn't ?
Archmides could just have well engineered the solution focusing (no pun intended) on the individual mirror point of view.
Imagine that the weapon isn't the array of mirrors, but in fact each mirror.
The design is so that it is polished enough and flat enough, with a frame that allows its operator to aim very precisely a reflected beam of the sun in a given direction. (say mounting on the frame things like orthogonal sticks and instructions on how to 'read the shadows' to be able to align it)
The second part of it would be to have many of them all pointing at the same target, and they will naturaly draw a parabola as a consequence (and that's not even necessary (that will happen if they wish to all be very close to each other so as to form a single surface),they can be spread as they wish in fact, at different heigths, depths etc.).
It might be good as 'beter than nothing',
but this is not good as 'the correct answer to the problem'
We have two algorithms not statisfactory enough one with n bits, the other with p. we check 'both'. well that could just be called a new algorithms of length n+p.
As an algorithm, its strength over any of the other 2 is that it generates longer hashes, but in the domain of n+p bits hashes, it starts with a severe handicap since it is easily 'divisible'.
(in two separate algorithms to work on to better work an attack, for instance, if you want to search a hash similar to this one, you can already start by just looking the md5 part and as long as this one fails, you can discard, therefore attacking far more effetively than you could do with a properly engineered n+p bits algorithm).
Plus the proper weaknesses of both of its parts certainly must make for clever ways to attack it once both parts are better 'cracked' (might not be true, but I don't think there's an obvious reason for it to be false either).
In any case, I think it's fairly obvious that it would just be a poor n+p algorithm (but yes, of course, it would be better than just 'this n' or just 'this p', but if the weaknesses found leads to better exploits, this n+p could very well be worse than some entirely different (just) n or p algorithms)
The card itself is just an antena powering an embedded 'tag'
The power it will be able to get and partly send back will be function of the field it is in. That field will be generated by the reader and, of course, different readers have different capabilities.
I have installed several types and while most of them are 5 to 12 cms range, there are some that work at meter range.
A coakroach ?
Well, where was that ? I believe you, really, but I never saw any myself and I've been living in France about 20 years...
Anyway bottled water is kind of a luxury, people buy it because they can, not because they need to.
Most people I know drink from the tap and I drink both from the tap or botteled water.
Thing is, water has its particular taste and you get used to it, I prefer it from the tap (depending on where I am) than from several brands of bottled water for instance, but I preffered it from botteled water than from any tap for those other brands...
That would also be out (there) not in (there)
No, thats not the reason.
Just like you don't hate them for their religious grounds and seemingly antique view on philosophy.
It just makes it easier to hate them because of this "obvious nonsense" (for one particular point of view).
But would you hate that much amazonian tribes with weird religious beliefs and prehistoric practices ?
I don't think s. however, if they were to suddenly rely on some of your properties to the point they'd be compelled to push you, maybe make you poor as a side effect if they are powerful enough.
But it would just be a side effect of their way of life !
Now would you hate them for believing in whatever they believ in or for interefering with you in believing so ?
but wouldn't it be much easier to hate them because of those weird belifs instead of because of those 'side effects' ?
have course, you could of also done some more
Hmm that's what Japan would say to China if the contrary were to happen wouldn't it ?
I suppose you meant "xiexie"
Well first ou have to realize that those tests rely heavily on statistics
You know, those statisics that work best if you believe in them.
Then you realize that when they tested the placebo effect, maybe they were ectually testing the testers ?
Will the tester actually reach a conclusion ?
They would if hey believed in their placebo/statistics techniques.
Will that be the same conclusion an external observer would reach ?
Since the overall conclusion is that the placebo effect is "controversial", I guess we can safely conclude that the placebo effect cannot explain the placebo effect, it is thus not complete.
They should have called this study the tagel-gödel experiment.
Of course, but that's not the issue
In your analogy, the problem would be, Honda complaining at google because google sold the word "Honda" to Porsche.
Porsche could get out of his way to make sure everytime Honda is mentioned somewhere, a Porsche ad should be near.
Even on google, by any (legal) mean they could think of. And I don't think there would be any problme with that.
The problem in this case is that google openly sells to Porsche the word "Honda" as a trigger for a Porsche ad. instead of say, "car", "coupé",..
Even if the end result isn't wrong in itself (showing Porsche ads to people apparently looking for a Honda),
The (illegal) fact remains that google "sold" the Honda name. It made monney (by selling adwords) using a trademarked name.
Whether or not that particular point is stupid or not can be an interesting debate, but you are aguing for something different.
Frankly, I think a better way to deal with that kind of behavior so that (hopefully) everyone would be hapy, would be to let Honda license their trademark for google adwords.
This way google could sell the adword Honda to Porsche or whoever, but each time, Honda would get a cut on the deal.
I'm not sure you will be able to see this answer as an AC, but thank's a lot for your own answer anyway, it really helped me.
The problem is that I (obviously) don't know well the problems here, and I thought that the twin paradow was not that the twins have a different age in itself.
But the fact that you could determine which one is really aging.
I mean that, if we forget about the acceleration/deceleration parts, during most of the trip, each twin can observe the other one as moving fast compared to himself.
If they don't have previous knowledge of who started accelerating, they can both apply he same (SR) equations to evaluate the other one's aging rate.
But, when meeting, one of them would be right, and the other one would be wrong, ie: one of them was really "the one moving relatively to the other"
I understand I am not being clear at all, I'm sorry, but your answer was generic enough that it took care of both answering what the twin paradox really is about, plus my own problem with the explanations I have seen of it (since I was appparently looking for something else in the "paradox")
the last part of my post is this:
at bigbang time (right before), all particles have zero speed relative to each other: they are all tied together.
then they move away from each other, and from the mass center of the explosion.
So, from this point you can see what could be an absolute reference frame, or a prefered direction.
The problem is, how do you find it ?
How do you know which particles are not moving with reference to that point, and thus have zero speed ?
Plus, it shouldn't be even possible, since you shouldn't be able to diferentiate wether the other point, or yourself is moving.
(but, and that's where I was seeing the paradox, we see that, indeed, one particle up to today has been accelerating in different directions thorought its existence until the time where you have come to observe it, and yourself (as a particle) have been subject to a different sequence of accelerations that put you at this point in a different "absolute" state)
But clearly, there is a difference after all, or at meeting time, the twins wouldn't have different ages.
My point was that maybe we could find another "signature" for any particle that could tell its age (since bigbang) and aging rate, and that would lead us to know what is its absolute speed.
That's because you are thinking of an homogeneous compound.
In this particular case, someone is wishing to include the fixed size of the energy extractor as part of the whole system in order to evaluate energy density.
Since this fixed part is big enough and brings zero energy by itself (it needs the fuel), it is clear that the bigger your reservoir, the higher density you will get.
Approaching infinity (very big fuel tanks !) you will approach the density of the fuel itself as the (now small) extractor part will get negligible.
why does this difference has an effect over the time both objects move at constant speed ?
The ship accelerates first, then during so long as it will be at constant speed the aging process wil take place.
it will then accelerates back toward earth and again, aging will happen during the way back.
it will accelerates again to match earth's speed and land.
if it went a bit farther before coming back, the age differences shouldbe greater because we would apply the formula on the time of travel at constant speed. (neglecting the comparatively very short accelerating parts of the trip).
Hw is it that accelerating "changes" who is aging like a magical switch ?.
at one point in time, you don't have information on wether earth or the ship is moving.
how should you know some accelerations took place long before that imply that you must choose one object instead of the other to apply the "aging formula" ?
instead of the earth, let's make that a second ship.
have the first ship "leave" the second one at incredible speed. (very short mighty acceleration) go "round the universe" and come back without having to be subjected to any other acceleration than the final stage where it would match the second ship speed to meet again.
same conditions, but we omit two accelerations.
how does that affect results and why ?
when the ship "comes back" let's not have it accelerate. instead, the other ship will do that to match speeds and meet.
what do they observe ?
in the end, which accelerations the ship are submitted to have influence on "future" equations handling (in the way that you will know which point you can choose as the one "that is really moving compared to the other").
Simpler:
make the two ships get away from each others and come back together.
this way both see 'the other guy' affected by aging, and what happens when they meet back ? if they travel the universe around, oes it make a difference when they cross each other ?
The problem I have with this faq's short way of solving the process is that, as do all the other faqs I found, it just says:
"here, this object accelerates here and there ! so this is the difference that explains why the twins end with one older than the other although they were both moving relatively to each other".
This doesn't explain anything at all, it shows that maybe this is where the explanation lies, but it's not an explanation in itself.
for that matter, they could paint ships different colors and say "here, they have different colors, that must explain why they behave differently".
I don't doubdt there is a valid explanation there, and I would just love to see it (if you have it, please help me). but this faq just doesn't show it to me.
Also, I have troubles actually believing that something truely exists here because it breaks relativity in saying that there are, in the end, absolute things.
if we see an object moving pass us.
which one is moving ?
there shouldn't be any difference, but, according to the faq explanation, there must be !
we don't have handy twins to show which one is different, but there still must be one, and it must be measurable.
In the end, if we start from big bang, every particles are related to each others like the twins. they have the same zero speed basis. if we take any two of them at a point, they follow different paths, get subject to different accelertions, and start behaving differently.
when they meet back, they could know which one of them is really moving relatively to the other.
Another way to look at it is,
since I could know which one of those two points were "the one moving" relatively to the other because of a simple luck of having twins available for the test,
I think I could just as well find simpler tests to verify when looking at any two objects which one is "really moving relatively to the other".
Since I can do that for any two objects, I can know, in the end, what is the absolute speed of any object.
That doesn't sound right I suppose,
so if YAAA, maybe you can give me this explanation I miss ?
(again, I don't claim this is wrong, I just don't take the simple argument as enough and give expamples of why it disturbs me)
I think you don't understand because you assume that this expansion couldn't have been faster than light.
This isn't necessarily true, and indeed, it looks like it was quite faster than that.
It's possible because space expansion isn't actually matter moving, so it isn't restricted to lightspeed limitations at all.
No :)
It's like saying "it's better to hear that than being deaf"
It does let room to imagine there might be worse things to be heard then, since you could in those case even prefer to be deaf.
But since you raise the very idea of being deaf instead, you give an "estimate" of how bad the situation actualy is.
It's just a construct, a bit like saying "not bad" instead of "good", but not quite.
You say "well, I could care less", and it sounds like you actualy had to think about that very idea: "could I care even less ? let's see.. well.. yeah I imagine I could care even less" (that's always true anyway)
So it is, in fact, more powerful than just saying "I couldn't care less" since just saying that is false and less valueable since evidently less thoughtful.
I could go in lengthy proofs of why you can *always* care less about something than you do at a specified moment, but I really think you couldn't care less about it