his blue hair was acceptable to him...still has me confused on that one
He wants his personality to stand out, not what others will perceive as deficits. Besides, these days having your natural color of hair is more likely to make you stand out than blue would. A lot of people are honestly surprised when they learn that I don't have any tattoos... even to the point of asking "why not?"
Photons don't have a mass when they are at rest, but they do when they are moving. They move fast enough that relativity comes into play increasing their mass from nothing to something. Their mass can be derived from e=mc^2, so m=e/(c^2). To double check the units should make sense. Energy can be measured in kwhrs, and dropping the K we get (kg*m^2/s^3)*hrs/(c^2). Expending further and substituting seconds for hours, stripping out the constant -> m=(kg*m^2/s^2)/([m/s]^2) - kg(m/s)^2/(m/s^2) and velocity can be canceled out, leaving simply a mass unit left (give or take the constants that I pulled out earlier, which shouldn't affect the unit.)
So the mass of an photon is its energy divided by the speed of light squared. By playing around with the mass of a photon being lim m->0 instead of simply 0, it follows naturally that acceleration approaches infinite, and so putting better judgment aside we can conclude that the acceleration of a photon under a force is infinite, meaning that any force applied will cause the photon to move infinitely fast... which in theory is exactly what a photon does from its own perspective. Or rather, the space between the "departure" and "destination" are collapsed such that the photon does not even move. To a resting observer, however, the photon instantly gains a mass, and so it's acceleration is reduced such that the photon's velocity indeed is measurable from the observer's point of view. Long story short - every time you turn on a light you are tearing numerous holes through the fabric of time and space. It just doesn't look like it from your perspective.
In my experience, "ordinary paper" is generally not the same thing as "treated with photoresist material, which creates channels that funnel liquid into tiny wells containing certain proteins or antibodies."
I'd be willing to hazard a guess that it's not the paper or tape that will be making up the bulk of the testing device's price.
I live in the US, and agree with you on your news choices. The BBC does a decent job reporting on the news, and the ONN often provides the best commentary on what people are thinking. Then again I've been reading the paper version of The Onion on and off for maybe 15 years now and have learned to read through their writing style a while back.
A place I used to work would put keyboards through a dishwasher (no soap as well)as a last resort if they weren't working right. Usually worked to fix most problems.
Bees shouldn't have much to do with the this. Oaks are wind pollinated.
unless you were simply asking about the lack of bees. In which case I'd say the most likely culprit is disease. We now have a worldwide bee trade, and some of those bees will carry disease (fungal, viral... doesn't matter for the point of this discussion.) The disease would have co-evolved with the native population of bees such that it doesn't harm them much, but bees that haven't evolved with the disease would be likely to suffer large plagues which destroy many hives. But... that's nature. The hives that do survive are likely just a little better at defending against the disease, so next time around they'll have a better chance. This CAN become a big problem if enough stresses and diseases start mixing with the population that no bees survive. I personally doubt that will happen, but if it does we had better get used to a very limited diet and the possibility of total ecological collapse.
Okay, that does sound like throttling of some sort, or possibly a slow down due to deep packet inspection. Although I have absolutely NO idea why a competent company would throttle or inspect http more than ftp... if anything the customers who use FTP would be more likely to be the ones "abusing" bandwith.
There is the possibility that this isn't so much a result of throttling so much as a bottleneck in transcontinental traffic. These are primarily American companies you are talking about here... and for me a traceroute of www.google.co.uk even looks like that's within the United States... although that's probably just a local mirror. I don't claim to understand Google's network topology.
I agree that the amounts aren't really significant... a few million molecules here and there isn't much, really. Just kinda... interesting (to me) trivia I guess.
It wasn't meant as a personal attack... if I was actually going for flamebait I would have put more emphasis on the Richard Dawkins part to bring out the IDers.
Every time you drink a glass of water, the odds are you will imbibe at least one molecule that passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell.' It's just elementary probability theory; the number of molecules per glassful is hugely greater than the number of glassfuls (or bladdersful) in the world.
--Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
People really do not have a good intuitive feel for statistics, especially when it comes to number as vastly huge as the number of water molecules in a glass of water... around 7.5x10^24 for an eight oz glass. The number of 8oz glasses in the ocean is something like... (5x10^23 gallons) x (128oz/gallon)= 8x10^24 glasses, which is pretty much equivalent if my sources were correct. Which means that on average, for every eight ounces of water that Oliver Cromwell drank, on average about one molecule will be in every eight ounces that you drink assuming complete mixing. Incomplete mixing would likely make it MORE likely that you are getting one of those molecules... if not Oliver Cromwell's water, then all of the people that are geographically closer. Multiply the amount of water he drank in his lifetime by the amount of water you will drink in your lifetime and I'm pretty sure that you can make up for the losses of water molecules due to chemical, geological and astronomical processes, etc.
I don't think it's so much that scientists think an environment similar to ours is a requirement for life. It's just that ours is the only that we know can support life, so it's the best set of parameters we have to sort out the absolutely dizzying number of possible places life is in the visible universe, as such it's is the best place we have to start looking.
And when you're looking for something that you can write notes in, an e-book generally won't fit the bill.
I could see e-books eventually being much better for this than dead tree books. The Kindle already has a full qwerty keyboard, so entering notes shouldn't be that difficult if a proper software interface is designed. An E-book could have many advantages... non-destructive editing (I.E. the notes can be turned on and off, or in a hyperlink form where you would activate them to read.) Sharing of notes would be much easier in an e-book appropriately designed for this, which would be quite useful in an academic or book club setting.
it's a lot easier to deal with a book printed on actual paper than an electronic copy
While it is much easier to deal with a single book printed on paper, an entire collection of books would be much simpler to maintain in digital rather than paper form. A well designed interface could allow sorting by any number of parameters to simplify finding a desired work. And transportability? I never enjoyed lugging around 6 textbooks, plus notebooks, plus all my other academic supplies. A single device could have easily held all of that information. I would still probably need a notebook or two for taking notes by hand, as using a computer for this seems more distracting to me. (or in my case I used a single binder with different sections for different classes. Using five pages out of a couple hundred page notebook for one class while a different class was running into multiple notebooks just seemed to be inefficient.)
Way off target. Lamarckian Theory postulates that it is the physical stretching of the parent giraffe's neck that leads to offspring with longer necks. Darwinian evolution by natural selection plays with the random variance that exists in any population due to statistical chance. The key that allows Darwinian Natural Selection to push a given trait towards a trait more adapted for the environment is that the selective pressure itself is non-random, even if the natural variation within the population is itself random.
What you read in the news about science is 30% factual but irrelevant, 50% inaccurate but in a not-that-harmful way, and 20% wildly wrong.
That's a pretty reasonable guess, but you can leave out that "about science" part. Every time I see something in the news that I have been personally involved in, there seem to be mistakes and flat out made up information while the important details and overreaching problems are completely omitted. It gets worse if you start cross-checking against various "new sources." I fairly consistently find every outlet making up their own little details to fill word space while giving the image of gritty journalism.
Which is actually the only way to do business in an advertising funded media. Once advertisers start paying the bills the audience is no longer the customer, but the product. Every company strives to deliver the best product they can to the customer... and in this case the best possible product to deliver is gullible people. Therefore it becomes the medias responsibility to attract gullible people, and beyond that to ensure that people become more and more so.
I think what you are referring to is more closely related to instinct than memory. Instinct is related to sets of behaviors that are performed naturally, learned. These are to some extent controlled by genes, but can be overridden by learning. I.E. genes will encode for certain basic neural pathways to be formed, but the brain's development will then be left to augment or diminish that pathway's strength.
Memory is an entirely different system, in which patterns simulating previous stimuli are stored and available to be replayed or compared against. Calling the effect of instinct "ancestral memory" or "genetic memory" is at best a poetic interpretation, at worst a logical flaw similar to Lamarkian Evolution wherein giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched out trying to graze from tall shrubs, then trees, rather than the Darwinian idea that giraffes have long necks because short necked giraffes did not live to reproduce as well as long necked ones.
So while I am not a biologist (IANAB), it seems to me that we should actually be *more* optimistic than a field researcher can allow themselves to be
It makes sense that the public can be more optimistic than a field researcher. A researcher has to base their confidence on the chances of their particular method working. The public as a whole can allow a large number of projects to fail, as long as one eventually gets it right.
Slashdot Mirror
his blue hair was acceptable to him...still has me confused on that one
He wants his personality to stand out, not what others will perceive as deficits. Besides, these days having your natural color of hair is more likely to make you stand out than blue would. A lot of people are honestly surprised when they learn that I don't have any tattoos... even to the point of asking "why not?"
Photons don't have a mass when they are at rest, but they do when they are moving. They move fast enough that relativity comes into play increasing their mass from nothing to something. Their mass can be derived from e=mc^2, so m=e/(c^2). To double check the units should make sense. Energy can be measured in kwhrs, and dropping the K we get (kg*m^2/s^3)*hrs/(c^2). Expending further and substituting seconds for hours, stripping out the constant -> m=(kg*m^2/s^2)/([m/s]^2) - kg(m/s)^2/(m/s^2) and velocity can be canceled out, leaving simply a mass unit left (give or take the constants that I pulled out earlier, which shouldn't affect the unit.)
So the mass of an photon is its energy divided by the speed of light squared. By playing around with the mass of a photon being lim m->0 instead of simply 0, it follows naturally that acceleration approaches infinite, and so putting better judgment aside we can conclude that the acceleration of a photon under a force is infinite, meaning that any force applied will cause the photon to move infinitely fast... which in theory is exactly what a photon does from its own perspective. Or rather, the space between the "departure" and "destination" are collapsed such that the photon does not even move. To a resting observer, however, the photon instantly gains a mass, and so it's acceleration is reduced such that the photon's velocity indeed is measurable from the observer's point of view. Long story short - every time you turn on a light you are tearing numerous holes through the fabric of time and space. It just doesn't look like it from your perspective.
In my experience, "ordinary paper" is generally not the same thing as "treated with photoresist material, which creates channels that funnel liquid into tiny wells containing certain proteins or antibodies."
I'd be willing to hazard a guess that it's not the paper or tape that will be making up the bulk of the testing device's price.
I live in the US, and agree with you on your news choices. The BBC does a decent job reporting on the news, and the ONN often provides the best commentary on what people are thinking. Then again I've been reading the paper version of The Onion on and off for maybe 15 years now and have learned to read through their writing style a while back.
Because the monthly fee you pay them is for a license to play the music?
And here I thought he had a handle on that sort of thing.
What? No other industry has EVER, I repeat EVER shipped one billion Logitech mice.
A place I used to work would put keyboards through a dishwasher (no soap as well)as a last resort if they weren't working right. Usually worked to fix most problems.
Bees shouldn't have much to do with the this. Oaks are wind pollinated.
unless you were simply asking about the lack of bees. In which case I'd say the most likely culprit is disease. We now have a worldwide bee trade, and some of those bees will carry disease (fungal, viral... doesn't matter for the point of this discussion.) The disease would have co-evolved with the native population of bees such that it doesn't harm them much, but bees that haven't evolved with the disease would be likely to suffer large plagues which destroy many hives. But... that's nature. The hives that do survive are likely just a little better at defending against the disease, so next time around they'll have a better chance. This CAN become a big problem if enough stresses and diseases start mixing with the population that no bees survive. I personally doubt that will happen, but if it does we had better get used to a very limited diet and the possibility of total ecological collapse.
Nothing important, indeed. I think you'd have a lot of annoyed customers if they had to go to 69.63.176.140 rather than www.facebook.com
Don't worry, the second assumption will become true again if our healthcare system isn't fixed.
Okay, that does sound like throttling of some sort, or possibly a slow down due to deep packet inspection. Although I have absolutely NO idea why a competent company would throttle or inspect http more than ftp... if anything the customers who use FTP would be more likely to be the ones "abusing" bandwith.
There is the possibility that this isn't so much a result of throttling so much as a bottleneck in transcontinental traffic. These are primarily American companies you are talking about here... and for me a traceroute of www.google.co.uk even looks like that's within the United States... although that's probably just a local mirror. I don't claim to understand Google's network topology.
I was going to go with cheesecake jellybean...
I agree that the amounts aren't really significant... a few million molecules here and there isn't much, really. Just kinda... interesting (to me) trivia I guess.
It wasn't meant as a personal attack... if I was actually going for flamebait I would have put more emphasis on the Richard Dawkins part to bring out the IDers.
--Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
People really do not have a good intuitive feel for statistics, especially when it comes to number as vastly huge as the number of water molecules in a glass of water... around 7.5x10^24 for an eight oz glass. The number of 8oz glasses in the ocean is something like... (5x10^23 gallons) x (128oz/gallon)= 8x10^24 glasses, which is pretty much equivalent if my sources were correct. Which means that on average, for every eight ounces of water that Oliver Cromwell drank, on average about one molecule will be in every eight ounces that you drink assuming complete mixing. Incomplete mixing would likely make it MORE likely that you are getting one of those molecules... if not Oliver Cromwell's water, then all of the people that are geographically closer. Multiply the amount of water he drank in his lifetime by the amount of water you will drink in your lifetime and I'm pretty sure that you can make up for the losses of water molecules due to chemical, geological and astronomical processes, etc.
So, yes. You have drank urine.
I don't think it's so much that scientists think an environment similar to ours is a requirement for life. It's just that ours is the only that we know can support life, so it's the best set of parameters we have to sort out the absolutely dizzying number of possible places life is in the visible universe, as such it's is the best place we have to start looking.
Just like it's spelled.
And when you're looking for something that you can write notes in, an e-book generally won't fit the bill.
I could see e-books eventually being much better for this than dead tree books. The Kindle already has a full qwerty keyboard, so entering notes shouldn't be that difficult if a proper software interface is designed. An E-book could have many advantages... non-destructive editing (I.E. the notes can be turned on and off, or in a hyperlink form where you would activate them to read.) Sharing of notes would be much easier in an e-book appropriately designed for this, which would be quite useful in an academic or book club setting.
it's a lot easier to deal with a book printed on actual paper than an electronic copy
While it is much easier to deal with a single book printed on paper, an entire collection of books would be much simpler to maintain in digital rather than paper form. A well designed interface could allow sorting by any number of parameters to simplify finding a desired work. And transportability? I never enjoyed lugging around 6 textbooks, plus notebooks, plus all my other academic supplies. A single device could have easily held all of that information. I would still probably need a notebook or two for taking notes by hand, as using a computer for this seems more distracting to me. (or in my case I used a single binder with different sections for different classes. Using five pages out of a couple hundred page notebook for one class while a different class was running into multiple notebooks just seemed to be inefficient.)
Way off target. Lamarckian Theory postulates that it is the physical stretching of the parent giraffe's neck that leads to offspring with longer necks. Darwinian evolution by natural selection plays with the random variance that exists in any population due to statistical chance. The key that allows Darwinian Natural Selection to push a given trait towards a trait more adapted for the environment is that the selective pressure itself is non-random, even if the natural variation within the population is itself random.
What you read in the news about science is 30% factual but irrelevant, 50% inaccurate but in a not-that-harmful way, and 20% wildly wrong.
That's a pretty reasonable guess, but you can leave out that "about science" part. Every time I see something in the news that I have been personally involved in, there seem to be mistakes and flat out made up information while the important details and overreaching problems are completely omitted. It gets worse if you start cross-checking against various "new sources." I fairly consistently find every outlet making up their own little details to fill word space while giving the image of gritty journalism.
Which is actually the only way to do business in an advertising funded media. Once advertisers start paying the bills the audience is no longer the customer, but the product. Every company strives to deliver the best product they can to the customer... and in this case the best possible product to deliver is gullible people. Therefore it becomes the medias responsibility to attract gullible people, and beyond that to ensure that people become more and more so.
I think what you are referring to is more closely related to instinct than memory. Instinct is related to sets of behaviors that are performed naturally, learned. These are to some extent controlled by genes, but can be overridden by learning. I.E. genes will encode for certain basic neural pathways to be formed, but the brain's development will then be left to augment or diminish that pathway's strength.
Memory is an entirely different system, in which patterns simulating previous stimuli are stored and available to be replayed or compared against. Calling the effect of instinct "ancestral memory" or "genetic memory" is at best a poetic interpretation, at worst a logical flaw similar to Lamarkian Evolution wherein giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched out trying to graze from tall shrubs, then trees, rather than the Darwinian idea that giraffes have long necks because short necked giraffes did not live to reproduce as well as long necked ones.
So while I am not a biologist (IANAB), it seems to me that we should actually be *more* optimistic than a field researcher can allow themselves to be
It makes sense that the public can be more optimistic than a field researcher. A researcher has to base their confidence on the chances of their particular method working. The public as a whole can allow a large number of projects to fail, as long as one eventually gets it right.
I think I've even heard it as *bleep* damn.
Alternatively, they may be trying to convince the world that they DO have a quantum computer.