For the pedantics among you (myself included), please replace "15.6" with "14.6" and "3.9" with "3.65". Somehow I got "7.8 billion" stuck in my head instead of the stated "7.3 billion". Stupid brain!
We don't. But if we can theorize they left 9/10ths of a second apart, we can theorize they left 150 million years apart and that "space potholes" DID affect their speed to a fairly significant extent.
In other words, this data appears to indicate that any effect would be very small, but if we accept that they left at the exact same time we have a difference that must be explained. And that explanation could be evidence supporting what the article says the test provides evidence against (that the pulses left at the same time and had a variance in their arrival times, therefore their speed was affected by some factor).
And if we assume they left at different times to account for their varying arrival times, we're saying the conditions of the initial phase of the test test are unknown (which is, by the way, very true) therefore it's hard to draw any solid conclusions from the test results.
There could be a way to validate this result. Test different distances. If you test a star at, say, 15.6 billion light years away and get a 1.8 second difference, and a star 3.9 billion light years away and get a 0.45 second variance, then you can reasonably conclude that there IS an effect on speed, and it shows that space may well be bumpy, just not VERY bumpy. If you test stars at various differences and observe a constant 0.9 second variance, then you can reasonably conclude that there is no difference in speed and that some factor is releasing certain wavelengths at different times during the event, and space is looking pretty silky smooth.
Actually, it really indicates nothing, except that any "bumpiness" of space doesn't have a profound effect on the speed of light within the wavelength range tested. It's good data. However, this neither proves nor disprove there was an effect, just proves that the effect (if it exists) is very insignificant at the tested wavelengths.
Insignificant != Nonexistent Tested Wavelengths != All Wavelengths
In order to prove or disprove the theory that light changes speed based on wavelength or other factors, you'd need to be sure that both pulses started the race at the exact same moment, that the two pulses travel through the same space without interfering with each other,and that they complete the race at the exact same moment (ie, within the margin of error of your testing equipment). The margin was almost one second, which is terribly insignificant when compared to 7 billion years, of course, but demonstrates clearly one of the following three things:
1. The pulses left about a second from each other, which we can neither prove nor disprove. 2. The test equipment was flawed and they really did arrive at the exact same time (which leads to #1, maybe they left at different times and just happened to arrive at the exact same moment). 3. The speed of the various wavelengths WAS affected by "space potholes", but it took 7 billion years to accumulate less than one second of variance.
If #3 is possible, which it still is even after this test, then the theory of bumpiness of space has not been disproven, it just appears that evidence points toward the bumps being really, really small or somehow only marginally effective at affecting the speed of light.
Plus, the original article goes on to explain that the tested wavelengths were relatively large, and that much smaller wavelengths might be more susceptible to the "bumpiness" of space depending on the size of the bumps. If the bumps are really tiny, then they might have just tested wavelengths that were too large to be affected by them. If we can measure some really high-frequency (low-wavelength) pulses against the ones we think are nearly identical, that would be much more compelling data.
Because running cables is a significant effort and expense. There are two barriers to running cables - economic and geographic.
Economically, it doesn't make sense for any one company to run wires unless they know they have enough customers to pay for it, which means many of the original cable wires probably would not have been run if it weren't for government sponsorship.
Geographically, in order to reach households, you need a continuous connection from your transmission point to the individual homes of each and every person, and in order to do that you need poles and wires installed along right-of-ways. That means you need to deal with individual landowners to get permission to put up the poles, then go harvest the trees and make and install poles to put your wires in place.
So, once you get the first company out there that's done all of that, they'll tend to have placed their poles in all the best spots and landowners are going to be reluctant to allow yet another set of poles and wires wires to run through their property, even if it's practical at all. That's assuming you are able to clear the first hurdle of getting every landowner between you and every customer to sign off on planting poles and running cable over their property.
And, of course, once a company goes in it's in their interest to yield as much money as possible off those poles, which means they're going to maintain a monopoly by either not offering pole space for rent, or charging outrageous prices for it.
Enter the US government.
The decision was made that power and communications constituted a "Public Good". To minimize the negative impacts of that good, we needed to have one set of poles for electricity, later telephone, and even later cable. One company would be subsidized and assisted in the installation, and in return they would accept regulation as a monopoly.
It was in the best interest of the first company to take that deal. In order to cut through the patchwork of landowner objections, the government simply used Eminent Domain where necessary to get the poles in place (a power unavailable to any company). The government could also allow the use of road setback areas for many of the poles.
Now that the wires are in place, and the government has assisted with the installation of those wires, the companies that accepted that assistance do not have the right to arbitrarily set prices. They can either accept competition (which means they give up their exclusive control of the wires the government helped them place) or they accept regulation (which means the government regulates their prices to make sure they make a reasonable profit on their investment, but that they cannot leverage their monopoly position into excessive profits).
The basics of flying and landing a plane are largely the same, the differences are in the approach and the mechanics of maintaining the flare until touchdown.
Given a nice long runway and a good coach over the radio, I suspect any private pilot could put down most commercial airliners. If the aircraft has autoland, probably anyone with a few hours on Microsoft Flight Simulator would do in a pinch ("Descent" players need not apply for obvious reasons - grin).
It wouldn't (in general) be likely to be a pretty landing, but in most cases the aircraft could be used again with minimal repair, and all passengers would be alive and not seriously hurt, if a little "shaken and stirred" with maybe a bruise or two here and there.
Yeah, "Phishing" still seems to apply as an appropriate term to describe social engineering attempts by email, which is already a pretty specialized term, where "email fraud" would have worked just as well to start with (since it is closely related to an existing term "mail fraud" which indicates the snail mail version of the same attempt). As usual, a term was invented to describe something that is harder for the layman to understand than the original term. Hey, we're geeks, new confusing terms are cool, so deal. 1337 n3w w0rdz0rz ru1z!
A phisher is still sending someone an email and asking them to take a specific action that, if you take it, will result in you giving up important information to someone wearing a black hat. We don't need separate terms to describe every possible nuance of the way you would potentially send the information back. If someone sends me an email with form they want me to fill out and mail, do I have to call that mhishing? And what if they want me to fax it? fhishing? What if they simply want me to reply to them with some information? rhishing?
What if you get an email that gives a bad link *AND* a scammer's phone number? pvhishing? Or does the order of the "p" and "v" depend on which appears in the email fraud attempt first, so it could be pvishing or vphishing? And do I read that right-to-left or top-to-bottom to determine "first"?
Is there a 3-week class on this new terminology, or a 12-step program to get people to stop using it?
Automates the process for those who don't even know such a feature existed? Google has gained a great deal of notoriety for making things just, well, simple.
Well, I did try to post a very funny photo I took on the joke board.
It was a photo of the entrance to a parachute school south of Austin, TX and featured a rusted-out carcass of an Otter with the nose buried in the ground. Directly in front of the aircraft remains was a sign that said "There's no such thing as a perfectly good airplane. Learn to skydive here!"
The Chief Instructor was NOT amused... The picture lasted about an hour, coincidentally about as long as the lecture about appropriate types of humor lasted. (grin)
In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, "It's a joke, son..."
Apparently, it wasn't taken as such.
For the record, I am former "Business Traveler Man" and current "PhotoAmateur Dad", so if contempt is involved I'm at least consistent, since I included myself in the list.
Or carry a bootable image around on a USB chip. You couldn't work while flying, of course, but that would cut down on Road Warrior Gear Mass (WRGM) which is a major factor in traveling.
I understand completely. I used to fly regularly, and I'm as sheeple as the rest of 'em, because travel used to be part of my job and it was totally impractical to drive half way across the country every week.
Look at Mormons. They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap. Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion?
Really? My brother's a Mormon and tried (and eventually gave up trying) to convert me years ago, but we still talk pretty regularly. It's impossible to convince him to go out for a beer or a cup of coffee, of course, but he hasn't shunned me.
I get the "you drink a glass or two of wine a day, you may be an alcoholic" speech from time to time, but that's just become part of our routine, and we can still talk about other stuff without getting all worked up about our differences. Personally, he fears for my immortal soul. Personally, I fear for his mortal wallet. We also don't agree politically on much of anything. But we can still enjoy a nice hike in the woods or a chat from time to time, and I don't get any sense of animosity or any attempt to ignore or avoid me.
Heck, the Mormon Church even has some pretty good practical ideas, like stocking up a bit on food (handy in Maine winters, though I realize it's more for the upcoming end of the world or something, but still - good advice for us doomed mortals too).
How much is a whetstone bridg.. errr.. "Thetan Detector" reading going for nowadays? They'll just tell their culti.. err.. members that they all need to come in for a refresher scan at $100 a pop because this incident might have caused a Thetan eruption and Xenu might be now able to come out from behind the moon in his ship, so they have to monitor galvanic respons.. sorry.. THETAN levels more carefully for a while.
Ahh, "Pop-up TFRs" (TFR = Temporary Flight Restrictions). The bane of every private pilot's existence since 9/11. Terribly inconvenient when they are announced before you take off, and somewhat more inconvenient if they are declared while you're inside one.
Kinda like a thunderstorm, with more ammo and less predictability.
Fortunately, the fine uniformed ladies and gentlemen who fly the intercepts have good judgment and a deep reluctance to shoot down unarmed gnats, so it hasn't been a fatal mistake... yet.
Because, God forbid should a Cessna weighing less than a Pinto and capable of a blistering 125 miles per hour get within 30 nautical miles of the President, Vice President, or any sporting event in progress...
I mean, after all, look at all the deaths caused by terrorist activities based in small aircraft.
Slashdot Mirror
For the pedantics among you (myself included), please replace "15.6" with "14.6" and "3.9" with "3.65". Somehow I got "7.8 billion" stuck in my head instead of the stated "7.3 billion". Stupid brain!
We don't. But if we can theorize they left 9/10ths of a second apart, we can theorize they left 150 million years apart and that "space potholes" DID affect their speed to a fairly significant extent.
In other words, this data appears to indicate that any effect would be very small, but if we accept that they left at the exact same time we have a difference that must be explained. And that explanation could be evidence supporting what the article says the test provides evidence against (that the pulses left at the same time and had a variance in their arrival times, therefore their speed was affected by some factor).
And if we assume they left at different times to account for their varying arrival times, we're saying the conditions of the initial phase of the test test are unknown (which is, by the way, very true) therefore it's hard to draw any solid conclusions from the test results.
There could be a way to validate this result. Test different distances. If you test a star at, say, 15.6 billion light years away and get a 1.8 second difference, and a star 3.9 billion light years away and get a 0.45 second variance, then you can reasonably conclude that there IS an effect on speed, and it shows that space may well be bumpy, just not VERY bumpy. If you test stars at various differences and observe a constant 0.9 second variance, then you can reasonably conclude that there is no difference in speed and that some factor is releasing certain wavelengths at different times during the event, and space is looking pretty silky smooth.
Actually, it really indicates nothing, except that any "bumpiness" of space doesn't have a profound effect on the speed of light within the wavelength range tested. It's good data. However, this neither proves nor disprove there was an effect, just proves that the effect (if it exists) is very insignificant at the tested wavelengths.
Insignificant != Nonexistent
Tested Wavelengths != All Wavelengths
In order to prove or disprove the theory that light changes speed based on wavelength or other factors, you'd need to be sure that both pulses started the race at the exact same moment, that the two pulses travel through the same space without interfering with each other,and that they complete the race at the exact same moment (ie, within the margin of error of your testing equipment). The margin was almost one second, which is terribly insignificant when compared to 7 billion years, of course, but demonstrates clearly one of the following three things:
1. The pulses left about a second from each other, which we can neither prove nor disprove.
2. The test equipment was flawed and they really did arrive at the exact same time (which leads to #1, maybe they left at different times and just happened to arrive at the exact same moment).
3. The speed of the various wavelengths WAS affected by "space potholes", but it took 7 billion years to accumulate less than one second of variance.
If #3 is possible, which it still is even after this test, then the theory of bumpiness of space has not been disproven, it just appears that evidence points toward the bumps being really, really small or somehow only marginally effective at affecting the speed of light.
Plus, the original article goes on to explain that the tested wavelengths were relatively large, and that much smaller wavelengths might be more susceptible to the "bumpiness" of space depending on the size of the bumps. If the bumps are really tiny, then they might have just tested wavelengths that were too large to be affected by them. If we can measure some really high-frequency (low-wavelength) pulses against the ones we think are nearly identical, that would be much more compelling data.
President Boorcs? is that you?
Because running cables is a significant effort and expense. There are two barriers to running cables - economic and geographic.
Economically, it doesn't make sense for any one company to run wires unless they know they have enough customers to pay for it, which means many of the original cable wires probably would not have been run if it weren't for government sponsorship.
Geographically, in order to reach households, you need a continuous connection from your transmission point to the individual homes of each and every person, and in order to do that you need poles and wires installed along right-of-ways. That means you need to deal with individual landowners to get permission to put up the poles, then go harvest the trees and make and install poles to put your wires in place.
So, once you get the first company out there that's done all of that, they'll tend to have placed their poles in all the best spots and landowners are going to be reluctant to allow yet another set of poles and wires wires to run through their property, even if it's practical at all. That's assuming you are able to clear the first hurdle of getting every landowner between you and every customer to sign off on planting poles and running cable over their property.
And, of course, once a company goes in it's in their interest to yield as much money as possible off those poles, which means they're going to maintain a monopoly by either not offering pole space for rent, or charging outrageous prices for it.
Enter the US government.
The decision was made that power and communications constituted a "Public Good". To minimize the negative impacts of that good, we needed to have one set of poles for electricity, later telephone, and even later cable. One company would be subsidized and assisted in the installation, and in return they would accept regulation as a monopoly.
It was in the best interest of the first company to take that deal. In order to cut through the patchwork of landowner objections, the government simply used Eminent Domain where necessary to get the poles in place (a power unavailable to any company). The government could also allow the use of road setback areas for many of the poles.
Now that the wires are in place, and the government has assisted with the installation of those wires, the companies that accepted that assistance do not have the right to arbitrarily set prices. They can either accept competition (which means they give up their exclusive control of the wires the government helped them place) or they accept regulation (which means the government regulates their prices to make sure they make a reasonable profit on their investment, but that they cannot leverage their monopoly position into excessive profits).
The basics of flying and landing a plane are largely the same, the differences are in the approach and the mechanics of maintaining the flare until touchdown.
Given a nice long runway and a good coach over the radio, I suspect any private pilot could put down most commercial airliners. If the aircraft has autoland, probably anyone with a few hours on Microsoft Flight Simulator would do in a pinch ("Descent" players need not apply for obvious reasons - grin).
It wouldn't (in general) be likely to be a pretty landing, but in most cases the aircraft could be used again with minimal repair, and all passengers would be alive and not seriously hurt, if a little "shaken and stirred" with maybe a bruise or two here and there.
But all 9 syllables refer to concepts already stored in my brain. "Code Re-use"!
And if a phacker tried to spam a woman with kids, he'd be known as a mother phacker?
Never mind, I did read, but failed to comprehend, the article. Stupid me.
Anyway, I still don't think we need a new term. In fact, I think we already have one. "Telephone fraud".
We need a "Funny AND Insightful" mod that goes to 6 so there's a little extra when you need it.
Because, for the post I am replying to, we need it.
Yeah, "Phishing" still seems to apply as an appropriate term to describe social engineering attempts by email, which is already a pretty specialized term, where "email fraud" would have worked just as well to start with (since it is closely related to an existing term "mail fraud" which indicates the snail mail version of the same attempt). As usual, a term was invented to describe something that is harder for the layman to understand than the original term. Hey, we're geeks, new confusing terms are cool, so deal. 1337 n3w w0rdz0rz ru1z!
A phisher is still sending someone an email and asking them to take a specific action that, if you take it, will result in you giving up important information to someone wearing a black hat. We don't need separate terms to describe every possible nuance of the way you would potentially send the information back. If someone sends me an email with form they want me to fill out and mail, do I have to call that mhishing? And what if they want me to fax it? fhishing? What if they simply want me to reply to them with some information? rhishing?
What if you get an email that gives a bad link *AND* a scammer's phone number? pvhishing? Or does the order of the "p" and "v" depend on which appears in the email fraud attempt first, so it could be pvishing or vphishing? And do I read that right-to-left or top-to-bottom to determine "first"?
Is there a 3-week class on this new terminology, or a 12-step program to get people to stop using it?
I'll keep that in mind for future reference, thanks. Especially horseple.
Hippopotaple has a ring to it, though I think I'd be talking about a different demographic...
Automates the process for those who don't even know such a feature existed? Google has gained a great deal of notoriety for making things just, well, simple.
Well, I did try to post a very funny photo I took on the joke board.
It was a photo of the entrance to a parachute school south of Austin, TX and featured a rusted-out carcass of an Otter with the nose buried in the ground. Directly in front of the aircraft remains was a sign that said "There's no such thing as a perfectly good airplane. Learn to skydive here!"
The Chief Instructor was NOT amused... The picture lasted about an hour, coincidentally about as long as the lecture about appropriate types of humor lasted. (grin)
In the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, "It's a joke, son..."
Apparently, it wasn't taken as such.
For the record, I am former "Business Traveler Man" and current "PhotoAmateur Dad", so if contempt is involved I'm at least consistent, since I included myself in the list.
Well, remember, for slow targets there's probably time to get a helicopter on scene. Stall speed = no problem.... :)
Or carry a bootable image around on a USB chip. You couldn't work while flying, of course, but that would cut down on Road Warrior Gear Mass (WRGM) which is a major factor in traveling.
I understand completely. I used to fly regularly, and I'm as sheeple as the rest of 'em, because travel used to be part of my job and it was totally impractical to drive half way across the country every week.
Actually, I'm a former business traveler and current PhotoAmateur Dad. :)
Look at Mormons. They shun their own family if they don't buy into their crap. Threatening to make you effectively dead to your whole (brainwashed) family - that's not extortion?
Really? My brother's a Mormon and tried (and eventually gave up trying) to convert me years ago, but we still talk pretty regularly. It's impossible to convince him to go out for a beer or a cup of coffee, of course, but he hasn't shunned me.
I get the "you drink a glass or two of wine a day, you may be an alcoholic" speech from time to time, but that's just become part of our routine, and we can still talk about other stuff without getting all worked up about our differences. Personally, he fears for my immortal soul. Personally, I fear for his mortal wallet. We also don't agree politically on much of anything. But we can still enjoy a nice hike in the woods or a chat from time to time, and I don't get any sense of animosity or any attempt to ignore or avoid me.
Heck, the Mormon Church even has some pretty good practical ideas, like stocking up a bit on food (handy in Maine winters, though I realize it's more for the upcoming end of the world or something, but still - good advice for us doomed mortals too).
No, there truly is something for which there is not an app. :)
Sorry, typo. My Thetans must be high. See?
How much is a whetstone bridg.. errr.. "Thetan Detector" reading going for nowadays? They'll just tell their culti.. err.. members that they all need to come in for a refresher scan at $100 a pop because this incident might have caused a Thetan eruption and Xenu might be now able to come out from behind the moon in his ship, so they have to monitor galvanic respons.. sorry.. THETAN levels more carefully for a while.
Reminds me of one of the "funny squawk sheets" that was posted in my flight school once. One of the items read something like:
Pilot: Auto-land very rough, please fix.
Mechanic: Auto-land not installed in this aircraft.
Ahh, "Pop-up TFRs" (TFR = Temporary Flight Restrictions). The bane of every private pilot's existence since 9/11. Terribly inconvenient when they are announced before you take off, and somewhat more inconvenient if they are declared while you're inside one.
Kinda like a thunderstorm, with more ammo and less predictability.
Fortunately, the fine uniformed ladies and gentlemen who fly the intercepts have good judgment and a deep reluctance to shoot down unarmed gnats, so it hasn't been a fatal mistake... yet.
Because, God forbid should a Cessna weighing less than a Pinto and capable of a blistering 125 miles per hour get within 30 nautical miles of the President, Vice President, or any sporting event in progress...
I mean, after all, look at all the deaths caused by terrorist activities based in small aircraft.
What's that you say?
No, I couldn't find them either.