Cameras on the cop's person, WiFi'ed to their car. The benefits of that are clear, especially to multiple cops with HUDs who can see thru each other's "eyes" with positioning, with a live operator back at the base to send backup.
But in the car is a great start. Personal cameras are just a tweak from there.
All of these videos should be stored for at least several years, and probably archived for the remaining career of each of the cops in the car. Cops should switch from filling out forms and testifying "on their word", to just voice annotating the video once the get back to their base. Then submit the video as evidence, rather than take the day off from patrolling to testify in court.
Fewer cop testimonies will be challenged. Fewer cops will do wrong on duty. The judicial process will be streamlined, whether just routine cop "paperwork", or time in court. Identifying barely glimpsed suspects will catch more people (and release bystanders picked up because cops guessed wrong) more efficiently, by circulating images among cops, rather than verbal descriptions, sketch artists, and inaccurate guesses that someone "suspicious" matches the merson first seen.
This device targets ocean currents, not rivers. Ocean currents already have too much energy (by historical comparison), accumulated in twistier undersea currents from the decades and centuries of escalating Greenhouse effects.
River current power is what is captured by hydroelectric dams. Which have their own problems, but we're already stuck with them. More ocean hydroelectric could allow us to release some dams that have too high a cost (environmentally or operationally) to justify their power output. Though application of these generators in rivers might just be a low-impact replacement for dams. However, the dams also deliver irrigation and drinking water, so we're probably stuck with them for the long haul.
This technology works the same way as Davinci's "aeolian harp", as immortalized in The Æolian Harp by Samuel Taylor Coleridge:
The Æolian Harp
My pensive SARA ! thy soft cheek reclined Thus on mine arm, most soothing sweet it is To sit beside our Cot, our Cot o'ergrown With white-flower'd Jasmin, and the broad-leav'd Myrtle, (Meet emblems they of Innocence and Love !) And watch the clouds, that late were rich with light, Slow saddenning round, and mark the star of eve Serenely brilliant (such should Wisdom be) Shine opposite ! How exquisite the scents Snatch'd from yon bean-field ! and the world so hush'd ! The stilly murmur of the distant Sea Tells us of silence.
And that simplest Lute, Plac'd length-ways in the clasping casement, hark ! How by the desultory breeze caress'd, Like some coy maid half-yielding to her lover, It pours such sweet upbraiding, as must needs Tempt to repeat the wrong ! And now, its strings Boldlier swept, the long sequacious notes Over delicious surges sink and rise, Such a soft floating witchery of sound As twilight Elfins make, when they at eve Voyage on gentle gales from Faery-Land, Where Melodies round honey-dropping flowers, Footless and wild, like birds of Paradise, Nor pause, nor perch, hovering on untam'd wing ! O ! the one Life within us and abroad, Which meets all motion and becomes its soul, A light in sound, a sound-like power in light, Rhythm in all thought, and joyance every where-- Methinks, it should have been impossible Not to love all things in a world so fill'd ; Where the breeze warbles, and the mute still air Is Music slumbering on her instrument.
And thus, my Love ! as on the midway slope Of yonder hill I stretch my limbs at noon, Whilst thro' my half-clos'd eye-lids I behold The sunbeams dance, like diamonds, on the main, And tranquil muse upon tranquility ; Full many a thought uncall'd and undetain'd, And many idle flitting phantasies, Traverse my indolent and passive brain, As wild and various, as the random gales That swell and flutter on this subject Lute !
And what if all of animated nature Be but organic Harps diversly fram'd, That tremble into thought, as o'er them sweeps Plastic and vast, one intellectual breeze, At once the Soul of each, and God of all ?
But thy more serious eye a mild reproof Darts, O belovéd Woman ! nor such thoughts Dim and unhallow'd dost thou not reject, And biddest me walk humbly with my God. Meek Daughter in the Family of Christ ! Well hast thou said and holily disprais'd These shapings of the unregenerate mind ; Bubbles that glitter as they rise and break On vain Philosophy's aye-babbling spring. For never guiltless may I speak of him, The Incomprehensible ! save when with awe I praise him, and with Faith that inly feels ; Who with his saving mercies healéd me, A sinful and most miserable man, Wilder'd and dark, and gave me to possess Peace, and this Cot, and thee, heart-honour'd Maid !
Replacing petrofuels (and even their waste heat) with this alternative generator would help slow climate change from the eliminated petrofuel waste.
But there's a vast amount of energy already retained in the Earth's oceano-atmospheric system. Vast rivers of undersea currents now store truly huge amounts of energy newly accumulated since industry's byproducts started the Earth retaining more energy. Undersea currents have grown much twistier in their paths around the globe. When that energy cycles through the interconnected systems on its own rhythms, the energy is sometimes transmitted into other media than seawater, that is much more disturbed by it. This is what the El Nino / La Nina cycle is an instance of: energy from heavy sea currents periodically enters the much lighter air, pushing it around much more. That kind of cycle, in a myriad of other such interactions, contributes to larger and more frequent storms.
If we harvested some of that energy from these currents with these new devices, we would be reducing the energy in those currents. The currents would return to their previous less twisty tracks. They would have less energy to transmit to the atmosphere and other climate engines. It would take a very large scale deployment, over a substantial period of time. But the double benefit would be well worth it.
The CATO Institute is "libertarian" the way that "libertarian" is "corporate anarchist". They oppose people creating governments to protect their rights, because those governments get in the way of corporate power to exploit those people.
By now, the only place left for media people who hate "file sharing" is inside the big media corps that make up RIAA/MPAA membership. The smart people have all left those doomed beasts.
The ones left share another trait: losing massive money - even as the environment should make it easier than ever to make more money, amidst quickly growing global markets, production cheapness and distribution fluidity.
The only trait keeping them from extinction is their business cartel and their legal copyright monopoly.
Which is why they're working that angle so hard, doing it to death.
Who verifies the results of these tests? Are these Chinese results produced by doping, the way that Chinese "OEMs" produce high protein food by doping it with toxic melamine that kills children and pets, or shiny toys with lead paint that poisons children? Or any of the many other cheats Chinese "OEMs" use to get past tests with flying colors that bamboozle people into thinking it's really quality?
If someone is ignorant of math and makes mistakes in public, any offense they take at being corrected in public is their fault, not the corrector's.
The same goes for when people try to justify mistakes by compounding them with more mistakes, and claiming the extra ignorance is a worthwhile part of accepting the mistakes.
All faiths are made up. Some, that aren't invalidated by proof (and therefore not faiths at all, just pure assertions from ignorance), might be correct. But just because someone guessed right doesn't mean they didn't make up the info that happens to be correct. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but not because it's telling the time.
You are insisting on more credit than you're due: you're insisting on credit for guessing right (assuming that you've even guessed right, which you cannot know). Then you're feeling insulted when I explain how you're not due that credit.
You can have faith in whatever you want. If you try to ascribe any certainty to it at all, in public, you're going to hear the truth about it from me, or people like me, when we hear you say it. If that offends you, and you don't want to be offended, don't say it in public when it's false.
Actually, this experiment didn't convert matter into antimatter. It used matter (the gold target and a source of electrons ionized by the laser driven into the target) as a transducer of laser energy into quanta emitted by resonating electrons after they "interacted" with the gold nuclei. Those final energy quanta decayed into matter and antimatter. The antimatter included the positrons. The gold target and the electrons driven into it also remained with their mass quantity intact. The positrons' mass started life in this experiment as energy powering the laser.
Evidently that procedure is revolutionary in its positron generating efficiency, better than the usual radioactive sodium pathway (used in PET) that actually does convert matter into antimatter.
This kind of laser driven technique cannot produce a net energy gain on output, because no mass is converted to energy. However, it could efficiently store lots of energy in matter-antimatter pairs stored for later annihilation at 100% efficiency. The current procedure is very inefficient, possibly 10 million times (or more) the energy consumed by the 1.25 PW laser (producing 400 joules for 400 femtoseconds) than the energy available from the "billions" of positrons annihilable with an equal number of electrons (or their equivalent mass). But if the inefficiency comes from blasting the gold target with energized electrons that mostly miss the gold nuclei, wasting most of them, and the electron beam could be focused directly onto the nuclei, the efficiency could increase dramatically. Gold's nuclear radius is about 6.3pm, while its covalent radius is about 144pm. So over 500x the electrons are generated than are actually used interacting with the nucleus. If the laser must drive 0.2% the electrons, it might not need to be as high powered (and newly invented), so perhaps a couple terawatts laser rather than a petawatt laser might be required, which could be much more efficient. There is very likely a similar kind of efficiency to be gained if the laser energy conversion to the electrons' kinetic energy also misses most of the electrons, so laser power could be much lower if it's used to accelerate more electrons. If that phase of the reaction were also about only 0.2% efficient, then the overall inefficiency might drop from 10 million to only about 40x (2.5% efficient), ignoring the efficiency of powering the laser to start with. There are even fewer details in the LANL PR about the "interaction" of the electrons with the gold nuclei that causes the electrons to emit the correct quanta to decay into the matter+antimatter than has based these extrapolations on vague info, but if that newly discovered process can be improved in efficiency by close to the "missing" 40x, then the only inefficiency left is powering the laser. Nanoscale devices might achieve all these efficiency gains, possibly manufactured in large quantities at low cost. Which would produce highly efficient energy storage in antimatter form.
A long series of improbably "ifs". But hypothetically those are the parameters that could be tweaked to harness this reaction for practical value.
No, what I explained means that certainty of metaphysical info is a fallacy. You can know that god exists, for example, but you cannot be certain. And so you might be right, but you're probably wrong. You can be offended by that, but just because you weren't aware of some of the limits of faith doesn't mean that you're entitled to insist they don't exist.
You also don't seem to understand the utility of mere "belief", which is a way of accepting knowledge that we haven't had personally proven to us, but which has been proven to someone else who we accept. Like when we learn that the Moon is covered in a silicate powder, not made of green cheese. Someone else proved it (including astronauts who went there and brought some back), and we have reasons for accepting it, even if we never touched the powder ourselves. That belief is different from faith, because faith cannot ever be proven, by anyone. If it were proven, it wouldn't be faith: it would be fact, even if that fact were unknown at some time, or even if that fact were false.
Maybe the nature of "belief" is what's missing from your formulation of how it's scientifically necessary that "faith is a reasonable assumption". But even so, the formulation you gave has no logical rigor whatsoever: it's just a series of unbased and arbitrary statements that faith is correct. It's true that faith isn't confined to religions (which are faith societies, but not the only ones), but that doesn't mean that any of them offer reliable knowledge - even if some of what they know might be true, and unknowable in any way other than through faith.
I'm not ridiculing faith: as I've explained in detail (much more detail than you give, at least of factual, logical detail) faith is a way of knowing info that cannot be known through other ways. What I do not respect, through I've been restrained in referring to it, is insistence that one's articles of faith are certainly true, because there is no way of knowing that they are other than circular "logic" about faith in faith. But on the other hand, you are insulting me without any basis except your insecurity in your faith when you say that I've been offending you, and then insisting that you have certainty about your correctness, and my supposed wrongness. You don't know, you cannot convince anyone who doesn't simply join you in unprovable faith, and your pronouncements of superiority are made-up. Especially when you're further accusing me of assigning specific articles of faith to you that I have not (except that Pascal's wager trick you tried to rely on that I identified).
You've got your faith. You can have it. What you can't have is my agreement that you have certainty. Or my acceptance of your accusations that offense your taking is my fault, when I'm just explaining facts about faith that you evidently are totally unfamiliar with. If you can't handle the truth, that's your fault, not mine.
Actually, the GP is correct about this experiment. I see now that the experiment didn't convert the gold target to matter and antimatter, but rather used the gold target (without consuming it) to convert the laser to energy, which decayed into matter and antimatter. So the energy in the antimatter's mass is indeed less than was in the laser, as was the energy in the resulting matter, the sum of which was still less than (or perhaps equal to) the energy in the incoming laser. No laser is 100.0% efficient, so the energy to make the laser beam is greater than the energy recoverable in the matter+antimatter reconversion back to energy. And of course making the rest of the apparatus consumes energy not recovered, too.
It shouldn't necessarily take more energy to split matter, like these gold particles, into antimatter and matter components, than the total energy equivalent of the original matter target. When the mutual annihilation is finished, the matter+antimatter mass is "gone", not reconverted to the original matter.
Conversion to antimatter before mutual annihilation might be the intermediary step that makes controlled, small scale 100% matter/energy conversion practical.
That setup seems an excellent prototype for a nanoscale torch directing antimatter particles at targets aimed by lasers and by magnetic plasma traps. Positrons touching electrons would annihilate, converting some mass to energy in a precise location, that would burn apart the matter connected at that location.
You just linked to O'Reilly's talking points about Mark Cuban, you insane Republican liar. The list of what you personally don't understand is bigger than Cuban's fortune.
That legal principle means that no one can accurately judge someone guilty until they're proven guilty. You've got a right to be wrong, and prejudge someone - you might even guess right - even though courts don't have that right to be wrong. But if you judge people guilty without their going through an evidence and argument process, you're probably going to be wrong.
You're an "Obama Republican". I note that Republicans like to think that government is fundamentally an arbitrary set of rules that apply only to government. In fact America's government is built on some "self evident truths" that are universal, not just parochial governmental procedures. Even according to science, a statement isn't accepted as fact until it's been rigorously attempted to be disproven and failed. So in reality, "innocent until proven guilty" is realistic, except in a very few of the most grossly self evident cases. Cuban's is not one of them, as he hasn't gone through any of the evidence and argument process, and all we've got to go on is the initial press reaction to the SEC filing charges against a celebrity.
I further note that as I looked down to submit this comment, I noticed the quote at the bottom of the Slashdot page reads:
"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman
No, I didn't say ignore it, and I didn't say he's not guilty - or that he's guilty.
I just said that the timing should make us suspicious of who and what is really ordering this prosecution. Especially since Bush crippled the "Justice" Department by using it for selective prosecution of political enemies, and this suit would be perfectly consistent with that. And because the bailout is a $TRILLION (or several) ripoff of your money, further crippling your government. Even if you can't understand the politics behind the attack, the implications of it should alarm you enough to pay attention, not to ignore anything.
So Cuban is "guilty" of making some movies about Bush crimes that had already happened, or of "pretending to sniff cocaine", or paying fines for yelling at NBA refs, or saying something bizarrely self-contradictory about P2P. That has nothing to do with preemptive activism depriving Bush of his final $TRILLION ripoff.
But since you are evidently guilty of collecting Bill O'Reilly talking points to defend Bush attacking the guy exposing that ripoff, I'm going to take your post as confirmation that your wingnut army is going after Cuban with the last power it has left, since America just fired it for its decade of crimes.
Even if he's guilty, of course selective prosecution matters. It doesn't change whether he's guilty, but it does show how seriously not credible is the agency that's selectively prosecuting him. Even if he is actually guilty, a verdict from such a corrupt agency is hard to take as proof that he's guilty.
FWIW, what little you heard is just the initial press response repeating the SEC's charges. If that were enough to decide guilt, Bush would have had all 60M people who vote Democratic behind bars over the past 8 years. In fact, we might even have, say, invaded Iraq amidst fanfare and WMD hysteria if we all just believed whatever the press initially reported when a Bush agency told us one of its enemies was guilty of something.
Slashdot Mirror
Cameras on the cop's person, WiFi'ed to their car. The benefits of that are clear, especially to multiple cops with HUDs who can see thru each other's "eyes" with positioning, with a live operator back at the base to send backup.
But in the car is a great start. Personal cameras are just a tweak from there.
Because Slashdot's moderation system sucks, and a horde of TrollMods abuse it for their own petty, bizarre reasons.
All of these videos should be stored for at least several years, and probably archived for the remaining career of each of the cops in the car. Cops should switch from filling out forms and testifying "on their word", to just voice annotating the video once the get back to their base. Then submit the video as evidence, rather than take the day off from patrolling to testify in court.
Fewer cop testimonies will be challenged. Fewer cops will do wrong on duty. The judicial process will be streamlined, whether just routine cop "paperwork", or time in court. Identifying barely glimpsed suspects will catch more people (and release bystanders picked up because cops guessed wrong) more efficiently, by circulating images among cops, rather than verbal descriptions, sketch artists, and inaccurate guesses that someone "suspicious" matches the merson first seen.
This device targets ocean currents, not rivers. Ocean currents already have too much energy (by historical comparison), accumulated in twistier undersea currents from the decades and centuries of escalating Greenhouse effects.
River current power is what is captured by hydroelectric dams. Which have their own problems, but we're already stuck with them. More ocean hydroelectric could allow us to release some dams that have too high a cost (environmentally or operationally) to justify their power output. Though application of these generators in rivers might just be a low-impact replacement for dams. However, the dams also deliver irrigation and drinking water, so we're probably stuck with them for the long haul.
This technology works the same way as Davinci's "aeolian harp", as immortalized in The Æolian Harp by Samuel Taylor Coleridge:
Replacing petrofuels (and even their waste heat) with this alternative generator would help slow climate change from the eliminated petrofuel waste.
But there's a vast amount of energy already retained in the Earth's oceano-atmospheric system. Vast rivers of undersea currents now store truly huge amounts of energy newly accumulated since industry's byproducts started the Earth retaining more energy. Undersea currents have grown much twistier in their paths around the globe. When that energy cycles through the interconnected systems on its own rhythms, the energy is sometimes transmitted into other media than seawater, that is much more disturbed by it. This is what the El Nino / La Nina cycle is an instance of: energy from heavy sea currents periodically enters the much lighter air, pushing it around much more. That kind of cycle, in a myriad of other such interactions, contributes to larger and more frequent storms.
If we harvested some of that energy from these currents with these new devices, we would be reducing the energy in those currents. The currents would return to their previous less twisty tracks. They would have less energy to transmit to the atmosphere and other climate engines. It would take a very large scale deployment, over a substantial period of time. But the double benefit would be well worth it.
The CATO Institute is "libertarian" the way that "libertarian" is "corporate anarchist". They oppose people creating governments to protect their rights, because those governments get in the way of corporate power to exploit those people.
By now, the only place left for media people who hate "file sharing" is inside the big media corps that make up RIAA/MPAA membership. The smart people have all left those doomed beasts.
The ones left share another trait: losing massive money - even as the environment should make it easier than ever to make more money, amidst quickly growing global markets, production cheapness and distribution fluidity.
The only trait keeping them from extinction is their business cartel and their legal copyright monopoly.
Which is why they're working that angle so hard, doing it to death.
Who verifies the results of these tests? Are these Chinese results produced by doping, the way that Chinese "OEMs" produce high protein food by doping it with toxic melamine that kills children and pets, or shiny toys with lead paint that poisons children? Or any of the many other cheats Chinese "OEMs" use to get past tests with flying colors that bamboozle people into thinking it's really quality?
If someone is ignorant of math and makes mistakes in public, any offense they take at being corrected in public is their fault, not the corrector's.
The same goes for when people try to justify mistakes by compounding them with more mistakes, and claiming the extra ignorance is a worthwhile part of accepting the mistakes.
All faiths are made up. Some, that aren't invalidated by proof (and therefore not faiths at all, just pure assertions from ignorance), might be correct. But just because someone guessed right doesn't mean they didn't make up the info that happens to be correct. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but not because it's telling the time.
You are insisting on more credit than you're due: you're insisting on credit for guessing right (assuming that you've even guessed right, which you cannot know). Then you're feeling insulted when I explain how you're not due that credit.
You can have faith in whatever you want. If you try to ascribe any certainty to it at all, in public, you're going to hear the truth about it from me, or people like me, when we hear you say it. If that offends you, and you don't want to be offended, don't say it in public when it's false.
Actually, this experiment didn't convert matter into antimatter. It used matter (the gold target and a source of electrons ionized by the laser driven into the target) as a transducer of laser energy into quanta emitted by resonating electrons after they "interacted" with the gold nuclei. Those final energy quanta decayed into matter and antimatter. The antimatter included the positrons. The gold target and the electrons driven into it also remained with their mass quantity intact. The positrons' mass started life in this experiment as energy powering the laser.
Evidently that procedure is revolutionary in its positron generating efficiency, better than the usual radioactive sodium pathway (used in PET) that actually does convert matter into antimatter.
This kind of laser driven technique cannot produce a net energy gain on output, because no mass is converted to energy. However, it could efficiently store lots of energy in matter-antimatter pairs stored for later annihilation at 100% efficiency. The current procedure is very inefficient, possibly 10 million times (or more) the energy consumed by the 1.25 PW laser (producing 400 joules for 400 femtoseconds) than the energy available from the "billions" of positrons annihilable with an equal number of electrons (or their equivalent mass). But if the inefficiency comes from blasting the gold target with energized electrons that mostly miss the gold nuclei, wasting most of them, and the electron beam could be focused directly onto the nuclei, the efficiency could increase dramatically. Gold's nuclear radius is about 6.3pm, while its covalent radius is about 144pm. So over 500x the electrons are generated than are actually used interacting with the nucleus. If the laser must drive 0.2% the electrons, it might not need to be as high powered (and newly invented), so perhaps a couple terawatts laser rather than a petawatt laser might be required, which could be much more efficient. There is very likely a similar kind of efficiency to be gained if the laser energy conversion to the electrons' kinetic energy also misses most of the electrons, so laser power could be much lower if it's used to accelerate more electrons. If that phase of the reaction were also about only 0.2% efficient, then the overall inefficiency might drop from 10 million to only about 40x (2.5% efficient), ignoring the efficiency of powering the laser to start with. There are even fewer details in the LANL PR about the "interaction" of the electrons with the gold nuclei that causes the electrons to emit the correct quanta to decay into the matter+antimatter than has based these extrapolations on vague info, but if that newly discovered process can be improved in efficiency by close to the "missing" 40x, then the only inefficiency left is powering the laser. Nanoscale devices might achieve all these efficiency gains, possibly manufactured in large quantities at low cost. Which would produce highly efficient energy storage in antimatter form.
A long series of improbably "ifs". But hypothetically those are the parameters that could be tweaked to harness this reaction for practical value.
No, what I explained means that certainty of metaphysical info is a fallacy. You can know that god exists, for example, but you cannot be certain. And so you might be right, but you're probably wrong. You can be offended by that, but just because you weren't aware of some of the limits of faith doesn't mean that you're entitled to insist they don't exist.
You also don't seem to understand the utility of mere "belief", which is a way of accepting knowledge that we haven't had personally proven to us, but which has been proven to someone else who we accept. Like when we learn that the Moon is covered in a silicate powder, not made of green cheese. Someone else proved it (including astronauts who went there and brought some back), and we have reasons for accepting it, even if we never touched the powder ourselves. That belief is different from faith, because faith cannot ever be proven, by anyone. If it were proven, it wouldn't be faith: it would be fact, even if that fact were unknown at some time, or even if that fact were false.
Maybe the nature of "belief" is what's missing from your formulation of how it's scientifically necessary that "faith is a reasonable assumption". But even so, the formulation you gave has no logical rigor whatsoever: it's just a series of unbased and arbitrary statements that faith is correct. It's true that faith isn't confined to religions (which are faith societies, but not the only ones), but that doesn't mean that any of them offer reliable knowledge - even if some of what they know might be true, and unknowable in any way other than through faith.
I'm not ridiculing faith: as I've explained in detail (much more detail than you give, at least of factual, logical detail) faith is a way of knowing info that cannot be known through other ways. What I do not respect, through I've been restrained in referring to it, is insistence that one's articles of faith are certainly true, because there is no way of knowing that they are other than circular "logic" about faith in faith. But on the other hand, you are insulting me without any basis except your insecurity in your faith when you say that I've been offending you, and then insisting that you have certainty about your correctness, and my supposed wrongness. You don't know, you cannot convince anyone who doesn't simply join you in unprovable faith, and your pronouncements of superiority are made-up. Especially when you're further accusing me of assigning specific articles of faith to you that I have not (except that Pascal's wager trick you tried to rely on that I identified).
You've got your faith. You can have it. What you can't have is my agreement that you have certainty. Or my acceptance of your accusations that offense your taking is my fault, when I'm just explaining facts about faith that you evidently are totally unfamiliar with. If you can't handle the truth, that's your fault, not mine.
Actually, the GP is correct about this experiment. I see now that the experiment didn't convert the gold target to matter and antimatter, but rather used the gold target (without consuming it) to convert the laser to energy, which decayed into matter and antimatter. So the energy in the antimatter's mass is indeed less than was in the laser, as was the energy in the resulting matter, the sum of which was still less than (or perhaps equal to) the energy in the incoming laser. No laser is 100.0% efficient, so the energy to make the laser beam is greater than the energy recoverable in the matter+antimatter reconversion back to energy. And of course making the rest of the apparatus consumes energy not recovered, too.
It shouldn't necessarily take more energy to split matter, like these gold particles, into antimatter and matter components, than the total energy equivalent of the original matter target. When the mutual annihilation is finished, the matter+antimatter mass is "gone", not reconverted to the original matter.
Conversion to antimatter before mutual annihilation might be the intermediary step that makes controlled, small scale 100% matter/energy conversion practical.
That setup seems an excellent prototype for a nanoscale torch directing antimatter particles at targets aimed by lasers and by magnetic plasma traps. Positrons touching electrons would annihilate, converting some mass to energy in a precise location, that would burn apart the matter connected at that location.
The indictment is keeping Cuban busy and costing him immediately, while sending the message that Cuban got hit.
You don't have a good coincidence theory, so you're just ignoring it all.
You're a coincidence theorist.
Who thinks Federal prosecution is appropriate for "being a jerk".
Let me guess who you voted for this year...
You just linked to O'Reilly's talking points about Mark Cuban, you insane Republican liar. The list of what you personally don't understand is bigger than Cuban's fortune.
If you're offering to say something worth hearing, I'll post again on it to straighten you out. Anonymous crackpot Coward.
That legal principle means that no one can accurately judge someone guilty until they're proven guilty. You've got a right to be wrong, and prejudge someone - you might even guess right - even though courts don't have that right to be wrong. But if you judge people guilty without their going through an evidence and argument process, you're probably going to be wrong.
You're an "Obama Republican". I note that Republicans like to think that government is fundamentally an arbitrary set of rules that apply only to government. In fact America's government is built on some "self evident truths" that are universal, not just parochial governmental procedures. Even according to science, a statement isn't accepted as fact until it's been rigorously attempted to be disproven and failed. So in reality, "innocent until proven guilty" is realistic, except in a very few of the most grossly self evident cases. Cuban's is not one of them, as he hasn't gone through any of the evidence and argument process, and all we've got to go on is the initial press reaction to the SEC filing charges against a celebrity.
I further note that as I looked down to submit this comment, I noticed the quote at the bottom of the Slashdot page reads:
No, I didn't say ignore it, and I didn't say he's not guilty - or that he's guilty.
I just said that the timing should make us suspicious of who and what is really ordering this prosecution. Especially since Bush crippled the "Justice" Department by using it for selective prosecution of political enemies, and this suit would be perfectly consistent with that. And because the bailout is a $TRILLION (or several) ripoff of your money, further crippling your government. Even if you can't understand the politics behind the attack, the implications of it should alarm you enough to pay attention, not to ignore anything.
So Cuban is "guilty" of making some movies about Bush crimes that had already happened, or of "pretending to sniff cocaine", or paying fines for yelling at NBA refs, or saying something bizarrely self-contradictory about P2P. That has nothing to do with preemptive activism depriving Bush of his final $TRILLION ripoff.
But since you are evidently guilty of collecting Bill O'Reilly talking points to defend Bush attacking the guy exposing that ripoff, I'm going to take your post as confirmation that your wingnut army is going after Cuban with the last power it has left, since America just fired it for its decade of crimes.
Yes, that call against P2P was bizarrely contradictory to his other public advocacy and private investments in it, as that article noted.
Even more reason why Cuban's fate is interesting to Slashdotters.
Even if he's guilty, of course selective prosecution matters. It doesn't change whether he's guilty, but it does show how seriously not credible is the agency that's selectively prosecuting him. Even if he is actually guilty, a verdict from such a corrupt agency is hard to take as proof that he's guilty.
FWIW, what little you heard is just the initial press response repeating the SEC's charges. If that were enough to decide guilt, Bush would have had all 60M people who vote Democratic behind bars over the past 8 years. In fact, we might even have, say, invaded Iraq amidst fanfare and WMD hysteria if we all just believed whatever the press initially reported when a Bush agency told us one of its enemies was guilty of something.
What are you talking about?