an atom is more than 99% empty space, and the electron is so unbelievably small compared to the overall size of the atom (think.0001%), that even given a sheet only one atom thick, the electron still has a lot of free reign to move around, and could be said to be moving in 3 dimensions.
but when discussing the net motion of the electron, this is ignored, we are only interested in when it jumps from one atom to another, thus its movement is best defined as 2D or 1D in graphene sheets or tubes, respectively.
1D and 2D are appropriate in this situation. they are discussing the movement of subatomic particles (a fancy electron i think), not the sheet itself. In a sheet of graphene, the electron cannot move up or down, it can only move along the surface - thus, its movement is restricted to two dimensions. Presumably, once the sheet is rolled into a tube, the electron's options are reduced to 'move this way down the tube, or move 180 degrees in the opposite direction down the tube' which is limiting its movement to 1 dimension.
note that i didn't RTFA, but based on a previous poster's summary, I am pretty sure this is what is going on.
(please, no pedantry about how the electron's movement is not truly 1D or 2D, as it exists in a cloud that allows for some freedom of movement in all directions. Since we can never really know where the electron is anyway, I assume that for the purposes of doing the calculations involved, it is most effective to ignore the bouncing-around-in-a-cloud aspect)
there have been many proofs in this thread, as well as several good links to wiki. i see no need to repost them here. my reply was not meant to prove anything, merely to point out the error in your proof. namely, that you are begging the question.
also, subatomic particles have no bearing in mathematics. the limitations of the real world do not apply here.
if 0.999... is not equal to one... then please, answer me this: what is 1 - 0.999...??
Don't say 0.000...1, because that is a nonentity, and would show a remarkable lack of understanding of the concept of infinity. (hint... there is no 'last zero' that can then be followed by a one.)
No, I am saying that the same hair's breadth that lies between 0.999... and 1 actually lies on the other side of your 0.999... also.
see, here's your problem. you START OUT by assuming.999... is not equal to 1, and then use that to justify your proof. Circular reasoning, dude. Not gonna fly here.
There is no hair's breadth between the two, because they are the same number. The difference between the two is not "essentially" zero, it IS zero.
what you are talking about has nothing to do with pedophilia. for one, the correct usage of pedophilia only refers to young, prepubescent children. being attracted to post-pubescent adolescents, teenagers and such (individuals that have mostly finished the physical maturation process - broad hips and bust in women, broad shoulders in men), is called ephebophilia, and is completely natural.
modern society has seen fit to lump it in with pedophilia, and for some reason 18 is seen as a magical age where 'OK, now it's socially acceptable to be sexually attracted to this person' but has no basis in biology or (nonrecent) human society. from a biological perspective, we are PROGRAMMED to be attracted to individuals in the mid to upper teenage years, because they are most likely to bear healthy offspring. given the variation that can occur in individuals reaching physical maturity, it can be damn hard to differentiate between some 16 year olds and 20 year olds.
For countless thousands of years, females were being married and having children at ages that would cause modern society to cringe, oftentimes to much older men, and it was the norm. Of course, recent advances in women's rights has probably had a lot to do with it, as now a female is treated as a human being with rights, as opposed to a piece of property that was to be married off for a dowry and social standing. but i digress.
actual pedophilia would be the case of a significantly older individual taking advantage of their position of power to sexually abuse a young, prepubescent child who is either unable to stop the attacker, or is too young/confused/scared to make a decision on the matter. it is ALWAYS rape, because the child can never give true consent, because they simply can't really understand what is going on. this has been shown to usually cause significant mental trauma and long term effects to the child, who is often made to feel guilty and ashamed of the whole thing, possibly repressing the memories to cause a festering canker of mental scar tissue that will stick around forever.
so... yeah. your anecdotes about horny young preteens and teenagers humping each other in the closet or hitting on older individuals is hardly relevant to the issue of pedophilia.
don't get all self righteous, gmail has had filters forever.
the priority inbox is like the opposite of spam filtering. that is to say, it works AUTOMATICALLY. some people can't be assed to set up rules and filters and such, but this will do all the work for them.
so yes, it IS pretty amazing new technology. smartass.
Want a cheap way to dissuade the rats from chewing on your wires? Buy the hottest hot sauce you can find, or better yet just buy some pure capsaicinpowder. Dissolve it in a liquid and put it in a lawn sprayer, then wander around spraying all the wires.
I have a feeling that the rats will leave your wires alone after that.
As capsaicin is soluble in warm water and alcohol, but not cold water, you may need to dissolve the powder in an alcohol/water mix.
dunno what asshat modded parent as troll, but the XBOX really is a true gem. there are numerous mature emulators available for the XBOX, and XBMC has a nice loader to access them all handily.
We cancelled our cable service recently, now we just use XBMC to watch tv shows and movies we download off the internet.
The interface is clean and intelligent, and it automagically downloads album covers, DVD covers & movie info from imdb, uses the milkdrop winamp plugin for visualization, and cooks you breakfast in bed. I can't recommend it enough.
At some point you have to realize that CO2 isn't a potential energy source like "spent" fuel rods and landfill refuse, but it rather an energy sink which will require the expenditure of even more CO2 producing fuels to process it like this.
sure, using hydrocarbon fuel to convert CO2 back into hydrocarbon fuel would be absurd. which is why i specifically mentioned nuclear, geothermal, and solar as methods to power the conversion. if you use clean energy at a plant to convert CO2 into a PORTABLE, STORABLE energy source such as gasoline, then you have actually accomplished something worthwhile.
maybe the cost is high at first, but hey, it's a new technology. are you seriously suggesting that since it is not ready for mass use today, it is not worth researching further? a renewable, carbon neutral method of portable energy (with the assistance of another renewable, clean energy source that's not as portable, such as nuclear or solar) would be useful indeed, and i certainly hope that a bunch of naysayers don't get in the way of that.
that is certainly debatable.... if we had a decent method to turn nuclear waste into usable fuel, would you still prefer we bury it? if we had a way to turn garbage into usable fuel, would you still prefer landfills?
at some point, we have to start being responsible about our waste products instead of just trying to hide them underground.
everyone here seems to be missing the point. while i have not RTFA, this doesn't seem to be a breakthrough on the 'creating energy' front, it is a breakthrough on the 'getting rid of CO2' front.
yes, a lot of heat is required to convert CO2 into usable energy.... so use nuclear power, or run this in a geothermal crevice, or set up mirrors to catch solar energy, or any number of creative ways. the end result is we can eliminate CO2, and get usable fuel out of it as a bonus.
any means of energy conversion or transferal is going to be a net loss, but at least this way the initial product is something we already want to get rid of, for environmental reasons.
These tardigrades, along with lichen and bacteria, are known to be able to survive space. We take them and colonize many small satellites and launch them all up in the belly of a spaceship. Once it is free of Earth's gravity, shoot them all out across the universe.
Think of it as a giant wad of planet spooge, impregnating the universe with terran life. Who knows how that could impact the next several trillion years out there in the big wide open.
Heck, why stop with simpler forms of life. We could shoot up tiny balls filled with water or soil and other extremely long lived, extremely hardy organisms. If they ever crash in another environment with tolerable conditions, they can go forth from there.
Is it geocentric of me to revel in the idea of spreading our own form of life throughout the universe, with no regard for what else is out there? If we assume that ET life is fairly rare or nonexistant, wouldn't it be neat to bump the odds up in life's favor?
so, please show where port scanning is defined as a civil rights violation, keeping in mind that it only sees what the computers's owner wants you to see.
privacy certainly isn't an issue, any more than you can scream "privacy violation" for someone looking up your street address in directory assistance, or reading the bumper stickers on the back of your car.
Oh, PLEASE explain to me how preventing students from using P2P applications is a violation of civil rights. I would love to hear how you justify that.
If you mention free speech, I'm going to laugh at you. Free speech does not include providing you with an easy mechanism to relay that speech, that's your own responsibility.
That's a whole lotta whining, but let's look at the facts.
1) Uploading of copyrighted material is illegal 2) The University, as an ISP, is legally responsible for what its users do, thanks to the DMCA 3) ~90% of file transfers over P2P are copyrighted material and illegal 4) There's no realistic way to tell if any given file being transferred over the network is legal or not
Based on the above, why exactly do you feel that the University should expose itself to lawsuits from the RIAA just so a small percentage of the student body can use P2P for legitimate use?
What use can you come up with that is not available elsewhere, such as using an FTP site or website?
I dislike the RIAA as much as anybody, but there is not a lot of leeway without the potentialof being sued.
this is actually completely wrong. it is not VB, the RIAA has not subpoena'd anything, and the system does not rely on port scans alone to determine violations. but thanks for playing.
so what you're saying is, you can't be assed to set up a secure Win2K box for your folks, with patches, and bugfixes, but you have no problem setting them up a secure Linux box? That sounds pretty biased to me.
For home use, Win2K is just as stable and reliable as any run of the mill Linux distro.
You seem especially hypocritical considering they already know how to navigate Windows to some basic extent, while they know absolutely nothing about Linux and will have to learn from scratch.
Working at Housing Network Services for a largish University, I can say that 60% bandwidth for P2P sounds about right, or maybe even somewhat conservative.
You have to take into account, of course, that bandwidth use for dial-up users will be a lot different, because P2P isn't nearly as attractive when files take ten times longer to download.
rules of debate? sure. burden of proof is on you, buddy. it's YOUR responsibility to show that people in the sex industry are there against their will. until then, you're just blowing smoke up everyone's ass.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAPP (i am not a particle physicist), but...
an atom is more than 99% empty space, and the electron is so unbelievably small compared to the overall size of the atom (think .0001%), that even given a sheet only one atom thick, the electron still has a lot of free reign to move around, and could be said to be moving in 3 dimensions.
but when discussing the net motion of the electron, this is ignored, we are only interested in when it jumps from one atom to another, thus its movement is best defined as 2D or 1D in graphene sheets or tubes, respectively.
1D and 2D are appropriate in this situation. they are discussing the movement of subatomic particles (a fancy electron i think), not the sheet itself. In a sheet of graphene, the electron cannot move up or down, it can only move along the surface - thus, its movement is restricted to two dimensions. Presumably, once the sheet is rolled into a tube, the electron's options are reduced to 'move this way down the tube, or move 180 degrees in the opposite direction down the tube' which is limiting its movement to 1 dimension.
note that i didn't RTFA, but based on a previous poster's summary, I am pretty sure this is what is going on.
(please, no pedantry about how the electron's movement is not truly 1D or 2D, as it exists in a cloud that allows for some freedom of movement in all directions. Since we can never really know where the electron is anyway, I assume that for the purposes of doing the calculations involved, it is most effective to ignore the bouncing-around-in-a-cloud aspect)
there have been many proofs in this thread, as well as several good links to wiki. i see no need to repost them here. my reply was not meant to prove anything, merely to point out the error in your proof. namely, that you are begging the question.
also, subatomic particles have no bearing in mathematics. the limitations of the real world do not apply here.
if 0.999... is not equal to one... then please, answer me this: what is 1 - 0.999...??
Don't say 0.000...1, because that is a nonentity, and would show a remarkable lack of understanding of the concept of infinity. (hint... there is no 'last zero' that can then be followed by a one.)
No, I am saying that the same hair's breadth that lies between 0.999... and 1 actually lies on the other side of your 0.999... also.
see, here's your problem. you START OUT by assuming .999... is not equal to 1, and then use that to justify your proof. Circular reasoning, dude. Not gonna fly here.
There is no hair's breadth between the two, because they are the same number. The difference between the two is not "essentially" zero, it IS zero.
what you are talking about has nothing to do with pedophilia. for one, the correct usage of pedophilia only refers to young, prepubescent children. being attracted to post-pubescent adolescents, teenagers and such (individuals that have mostly finished the physical maturation process - broad hips and bust in women, broad shoulders in men), is called ephebophilia, and is completely natural.
modern society has seen fit to lump it in with pedophilia, and for some reason 18 is seen as a magical age where 'OK, now it's socially acceptable to be sexually attracted to this person' but has no basis in biology or (nonrecent) human society. from a biological perspective, we are PROGRAMMED to be attracted to individuals in the mid to upper teenage years, because they are most likely to bear healthy offspring. given the variation that can occur in individuals reaching physical maturity, it can be damn hard to differentiate between some 16 year olds and 20 year olds.
For countless thousands of years, females were being married and having children at ages that would cause modern society to cringe, oftentimes to much older men, and it was the norm. Of course, recent advances in women's rights has probably had a lot to do with it, as now a female is treated as a human being with rights, as opposed to a piece of property that was to be married off for a dowry and social standing. but i digress.
actual pedophilia would be the case of a significantly older individual taking advantage of their position of power to sexually abuse a young, prepubescent child who is either unable to stop the attacker, or is too young/confused/scared to make a decision on the matter. it is ALWAYS rape, because the child can never give true consent, because they simply can't really understand what is going on. this has been shown to usually cause significant mental trauma and long term effects to the child, who is often made to feel guilty and ashamed of the whole thing, possibly repressing the memories to cause a festering canker of mental scar tissue that will stick around forever.
so... yeah. your anecdotes about horny young preteens and teenagers humping each other in the closet or hitting on older individuals is hardly relevant to the issue of pedophilia.
don't get all self righteous, gmail has had filters forever.
the priority inbox is like the opposite of spam filtering. that is to say, it works AUTOMATICALLY. some people can't be assed to set up rules and filters and such, but this will do all the work for them.
so yes, it IS pretty amazing new technology. smartass.
i can think of several interesting gestures for use on porn sites. heh.
Want a cheap way to dissuade the rats from chewing on your wires? Buy the hottest hot sauce you can find, or better yet just buy some pure capsaicin powder. Dissolve it in a liquid and put it in a lawn sprayer, then wander around spraying all the wires.
I have a feeling that the rats will leave your wires alone after that.
As capsaicin is soluble in warm water and alcohol, but not cold water, you may need to dissolve the powder in an alcohol/water mix.
dunno what asshat modded parent as troll, but the XBOX really is a true gem. there are numerous mature emulators available for the XBOX, and XBMC has a nice loader to access them all handily.
We cancelled our cable service recently, now we just use XBMC to watch tv shows and movies we download off the internet.
The interface is clean and intelligent, and it automagically downloads album covers, DVD covers & movie info from imdb, uses the milkdrop winamp plugin for visualization, and cooks you breakfast in bed. I can't recommend it enough.
yeah but you can't put geothermal energy in your car and drive around town.
At some point you have to realize that CO2 isn't a potential energy source like "spent" fuel rods and landfill refuse, but it rather an energy sink which will require the expenditure of even more CO2 producing fuels to process it like this.
sure, using hydrocarbon fuel to convert CO2 back into hydrocarbon fuel would be absurd. which is why i specifically mentioned nuclear, geothermal, and solar as methods to power the conversion. if you use clean energy at a plant to convert CO2 into a PORTABLE, STORABLE energy source such as gasoline, then you have actually accomplished something worthwhile.
maybe the cost is high at first, but hey, it's a new technology. are you seriously suggesting that since it is not ready for mass use today, it is not worth researching further? a renewable, carbon neutral method of portable energy (with the assistance of another renewable, clean energy source that's not as portable, such as nuclear or solar) would be useful indeed, and i certainly hope that a bunch of naysayers don't get in the way of that.
that is certainly debatable.... if we had a decent method to turn nuclear waste into usable fuel, would you still prefer we bury it? if we had a way to turn garbage into usable fuel, would you still prefer landfills?
at some point, we have to start being responsible about our waste products instead of just trying to hide them underground.
everyone here seems to be missing the point. while i have not RTFA, this doesn't seem to be a breakthrough on the 'creating energy' front, it is a breakthrough on the 'getting rid of CO2' front.
yes, a lot of heat is required to convert CO2 into usable energy.... so use nuclear power, or run this in a geothermal crevice, or set up mirrors to catch solar energy, or any number of creative ways. the end result is we can eliminate CO2, and get usable fuel out of it as a bonus.
any means of energy conversion or transferal is going to be a net loss, but at least this way the initial product is something we already want to get rid of, for environmental reasons.
Surely I am not the only one with this in mind...
These tardigrades, along with lichen and bacteria, are known to be able to survive space. We take them and colonize many small satellites and launch them all up in the belly of a spaceship. Once it is free of Earth's gravity, shoot them all out across the universe.
Think of it as a giant wad of planet spooge, impregnating the universe with terran life. Who knows how that could impact the next several trillion years out there in the big wide open.
Heck, why stop with simpler forms of life. We could shoot up tiny balls filled with water or soil and other extremely long lived, extremely hardy organisms. If they ever crash in another environment with tolerable conditions, they can go forth from there.
Is it geocentric of me to revel in the idea of spreading our own form of life throughout the universe, with no regard for what else is out there? If we assume that ET life is fairly rare or nonexistant, wouldn't it be neat to bump the odds up in life's favor?
so, please show where port scanning is defined as a civil rights violation, keeping in mind that it only sees what the computers's owner wants you to see.
privacy certainly isn't an issue, any more than you can scream "privacy violation" for someone looking up your street address in directory assistance, or reading the bumper stickers on the back of your car.
Oh, PLEASE explain to me how preventing students from using P2P applications is a violation of civil rights. I would love to hear how you justify that.
If you mention free speech, I'm going to laugh at you. Free speech does not include providing you with an easy mechanism to relay that speech, that's your own responsibility.
That's a whole lotta whining, but let's look at the facts.
1) Uploading of copyrighted material is illegal
2) The University, as an ISP, is legally responsible for what its users do, thanks to the DMCA
3) ~90% of file transfers over P2P are copyrighted material and illegal
4) There's no realistic way to tell if any given file being transferred over the network is legal or not
Based on the above, why exactly do you feel that the University should expose itself to lawsuits from the RIAA just so a small percentage of the student body can use P2P for legitimate use?
What use can you come up with that is not available elsewhere, such as using an FTP site or website?
I dislike the RIAA as much as anybody, but there is not a lot of leeway without the potentialof being sued.
most newer-gen P2P applications allow you to change the ports they connect over.
this is actually completely wrong. it is not VB, the RIAA has not subpoena'd anything, and the system does not rely on port scans alone to determine violations. but thanks for playing.
That's just a stupid statement. UF doesn't allow students to run quake servers, but they are more than welcome to connect to quake servers elsewhere.
yes, it does, and yes, we do have a "no servers" policy.
so what you're saying is, you can't be assed to set up a secure Win2K box for your folks, with patches, and bugfixes, but you have no problem setting them up a secure Linux box? That sounds pretty biased to me.
For home use, Win2K is just as stable and reliable as any run of the mill Linux distro.
You seem especially hypocritical considering they already know how to navigate Windows to some basic extent, while they know absolutely nothing about Linux and will have to learn from scratch.
Working at Housing Network Services for a largish University, I can say that 60% bandwidth for P2P sounds about right, or maybe even somewhat conservative.
You have to take into account, of course, that bandwidth use for dial-up users will be a lot different, because P2P isn't nearly as attractive when files take ten times longer to download.
rules of debate? sure. burden of proof is on you, buddy. it's YOUR responsibility to show that people in the sex industry are there against their will. until then, you're just blowing smoke up everyone's ass.
arg. the PARENT to my post. the one i originally responded to. the one i was mocking.