> Well, is that all? Just assume one can reverse time? Crap. Neither is "elegant", > both are shoddy, primitive attempts at explaining something we cannot (as yet) > measure.
Flipping the time arrows in an equation isn't the same thing as being able to reverse time. This is akin to adding a negative quantity to something - an operation that is mathematically sound but has no real-world analog. Physics abounds with this stuff.
this idea is based on the concept of "photon holes" in the EM field that travel backwards in time and impart a negative impulse on the body. photon holes are assumed to have just as much physical realness as photons (photon holes == gravitons).
it seems a lot more elegant than "dark matter" and it has the benefit of making more intuitive sense (if you're comfortable with flipping the time arrow back and forth).
> A particle, like photon, can travel faster than the speed of light as they are > already traveling at the speed of light to begin with.
I've never heard of the possibility for a photon to travel faster than c, where c is speed of light in vacuum. What is the basis for this? Also, does a photon ever really accelerate anyway? Do bosons and fermions really have the same relativistic physics?
> I thought it was decided that the universe's expansion was expanding at the > speed of light
I don't think the acceleration in on the order of c^2, if that's what you mean. What they mean is that due to acceleration, some space (the stuff that's furthest away) is expanding at close to c.
> My gripe with this show is that it seems to be little more than a vehicle for > leftist propaganda.
The two examples you cite aren't left-right issues. Interventionism vs. isolationism is usually polarizing, but liberals and conservatives alternate positions regarding this issue depending on the circumstances. You need only to compare the circumstances surrounding the first world wars and the current nid for expansion of the Pax Americana. In that sense, maybe Enterprise writers are just isolationists, and not necessarily liberals.
On the other hand, things like "righteous" violence, pre-emptive strikes, and torture are routinely used and even glorified on current Trek episodes. I'd say pacifism, opposition to institutional violence and abhorrence of first-strike policies are fundamentally liberal, and Trek tramples on these ideas regularly in favor of a more bloodlusty rhetoric.
The AIDS analog was clearly pro-secularist, but again that doesn't necessarily make it liberal propaganda. Even conservative champ Bill O'Reilly, when talking about his stance as an independent, talks about secularism and liberalism as separate (evil) causes, and I think he's essentially correct regarding their separation. Take Turkey - they have a secularist government that is also pretty conservative (right-wing) on the authoritarian axis.
> I think people have realized that his "evil doings" really aren's so bad > compared to the current administration.
You mean like lobbing cruise missiles into Afghanistan or regime change in Yugoslavia?
I would love to see Democrats stop acting like Republicans with regard to foreign policy (at least). Then at least the candidates would at least be distinguishable.
Why do you have to be so caustic when delivering an otherwise insightful reply? If you are offended by the poster so much then maybe you should take a look around and see that there are worse things to be pissed at besides this one guy's indecisiveness.
> If those notes sit around for a while. Nobody cares about your life anyways. > If anybody reads that drivel it's just that they are being polite. > I can't imagine anything more boring than reading somebody's "travel log".
You probably can't imagine much at all, then. Consider that many popular books and magazines are actually travel logs. Also consider that people who want to go to the same place rely on travel logs and trip reports to inform them about pitfalls and highlights of the journey.
Yes, so far, beer has brought our darkest, most perverse secrets to the surface for all to see. Quantum encryption is just the next logical step. Now mom will know you browse farm porn whether or not you get drunk and tell her.
> News is straight reporting. > I don't need to hear their bias I just want Who What where why and when....
I don't want this, because
1) it's impossible anyway - bias is uncontrollable 2) passive reporting is often inaccurate because it is difficult to get all evidence or context from the empirical facts alone
Who what where why and when don't always yield a good understanding of the truth. Just watch any situational comedy and you'll see this principle demonstrated endlessly.
Journalism is all about interpreting the truth based on empirical facts combined with knowledge of context. Allowing all viewpoints (including what you and I consider bullshit) is bias control. Ideally, you construct your own bullshit filter by listening to as many viewpoints as possible. The truth can often be interpolated in this way.
On a side note, isn't it funny how some people will freely squander their access to free press? People rail against opposing viewpoints (complaining about ultra-right fox or the evil liberal press) and actually squelch them. They never consider that reducing your incoming information to one viewpoint or interpretation is like voluntarily succumbing to spoon-feeding. The truth is that all reporters are biased and it's up to us to listen to all and glean truth, not to filter out "bullshit" and only listen to what makes us feel good. It's ALL bullshit unless you see it with your own eyes.
> Jackie Robinson would not be remotely as important historically if he were not > black.
I disagree. Jackie Robinson would not be remotely as important historically if he had not changed American baseball. His being black was not his contribution. It is, however, relevant to the story of his contribution.
> Turing would be every bit as important historically if he were not gay.
Turing almost certainly would have been MORE important historically had he not been a victim of discrimination. He was young and barely in his prime when he was essentially expelled from the scientific community.
Both examples show great impact on a profession, and unfair discrimination against particular individual characteristics are relevant to each story. Certainly I agree that Turing being gay didn't cause his potential, but I strongly urge people to consider that his being gay, and the discrimination elicited thereby, is very relevant to the story of what would have been contributed by this man were he not gay.
> I don't how it's relevant to discuss Alan Turing's sexuality in the context of > his contributions to computer science.
It's only relevant because he was a _persecuted_ gay. Now we know that perpetrators of this particular type of discrimination can be enemies of science. There are always a set of poltically correct ways to discriminate (e.g. awards, reputation, curriculum vitae) and politically incorrect ways to discriminate (gender, age, race, etc). Sexual orientation used to be an unquestionably acceptable criterion for discrimination, and Turing's example shows why that's changing.
> But to have to label him right off the bat everytime his name is uttered is > absurd.
That's like saying that we shouldn't say Jackie Robinson was black when talking about his accomplishments. His race is central to the the story of what baseball gained by his entry in to game. Turing's sexuality is central to the story of what computer science lost due to Turing's expulsion from the field.
Re:Those of us in the know...
on
Evoting in the News
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think successful machines might yield greater turnout, which might clarify where people stand at any given time and provide a more accurately appointed set of leaders. In that sense, I hope we CAN implement more accurate voting, but I think we need to do it in such a way as to minimize the chance of corruption. Even if Diebold doesn't intend to leave the door open, so far they have and that shouldn't be ignored if we want this technological advancement to succeed.
> Your one vote makes little difference in the final outcome of the election.
I've always thought that this was an unfortunate existential conundrum. From a certain view, yes - in the end, the ordinary voter is just a speck of dust on the political landscape - but you could view every action you take in life the same way from the appropriate perspective.
I am only responsible for my vote, no one else's - and even if it only matters to a tiny degree, that is infinitely more than zero, which is fine for me right now. America is still an adequately free place in the sense that there are other forums besides the voting booth with which I can increase the awareness of my position if I wish. My vote and my actions can "matter" in this sense as much as I choose.
> Just consider all the dolts who blew Gore's chance in 2000 by voting with their > heart for Nader.
Maybe if Gore had been more liberal he would have gotten Green votes. I wouldn't have voted for him in either case, but the moral is that this is just the way the cookie crumbles (ignoring the closeness of the results for simplicity).
True - this phenonmenon is the biggest impediment to using "alternative" office packages.
I always complain to people at work that the biggest problem is that they adopt a product as a standard for both collaboration and presentation... which might be OK, except that maybe 85% of the time they just need a presentation standard (eg PDF). You really only need to standardize on a productivity tool if there are back-and-forth edits. Companies don't recognize this subtelty and lump both together to save money or "complexity" and they really just end up locking themselves into a tenuous lock-step MS upgrade cycle, because collaborative, working formats like xls, ppt, and doc still exhibit minor (occasionally major) incompatibilities with version changes anyway. This ends up being difficult and complex anyway when you have more than one customer or vendor, which is almost always the case.
> However, computer science is not about programming -- it's about deciding what to program.
Cute profundity. How about this: deciding what to program is usually called marketing.
Engineering and theory are inextricably co-dependent; it should be obvious that one cannot exist without the other. The idea that theory is "pure science" while applied science is somehow peripheral just doesn't follow.
I agree, that is why I didn't complain w/ grandparent. Parent was implying that it is not worth it to get a CS "just to program" which sounded to me like elitist rhetoric. Maybe you're right and I misjudged his tone when he referred to rank-and-file programmers as "just code monkeys."
I have to call bullshit on this knee-jerk arrogance.
MANY CS majors become coders, and it is a perfectly acceptable outlet for the skills, knowledge and wisdom gleaned from a good CS degree program.
Just because some people are fortunate enough to be able to pursue a career in academe or in bleeding edge R&D or other theoretical pursuits, does not mean that good programming is not applied computer science.
If anyone believes otherwise, have another gander at the standard courses in a modern CS degree at any reputable university. You'll find tons of software design theory that can be DIRECTLY applied to writing software.
I would think that they all matter to varying degrees depending on the circumstances. For instance, high voltages and low resistances means lots of current.
Try standing barefoot in a puddle and peeing on that electric fence and see if your results are different.
500V should increase chances of a shock or arc, all else being equal (resistance of human body or jaws of life, ground potential, fuse ratings, etc)
I did some googling and found that there are plenty of sites that seem to describe the downsides of DRM for consumers, but Google News seems bereft of info on any negative impact on consumers of DRM - just based on a few cursory searches, anyway, it looks like the media is just saying "oh, by the way, here it comes."
Slashdot Mirror
> Well, is that all? Just assume one can reverse time? Crap. Neither is "elegant",
> both are shoddy, primitive attempts at explaining something we cannot (as yet)
> measure.
Flipping the time arrows in an equation isn't the same thing as being able to reverse time. This is akin to adding a negative quantity to something - an operation that is mathematically sound but has no real-world analog. Physics abounds with this stuff.
are there any real physicists who see it this way, or just the quack i found on google?
googly, googly....
this idea is based on the concept of "photon holes" in the EM field that travel backwards in time and impart a negative impulse on the body. photon holes are assumed to have just as much physical realness as photons (photon holes == gravitons).
it seems a lot more elegant than "dark matter" and it has the benefit of making more intuitive sense (if you're comfortable with flipping the time arrow back and forth).
> A particle, like photon, can travel faster than the speed of light as they are
> already traveling at the speed of light to begin with.
I've never heard of the possibility for a photon to travel faster than c, where c is speed of light in vacuum. What is the basis for this? Also, does a photon ever really accelerate anyway? Do bosons and fermions really have the same relativistic physics?
> I thought it was decided that the universe's expansion was expanding at the
> speed of light
I don't think the acceleration in on the order of c^2, if that's what you mean. What they mean is that due to acceleration, some space (the stuff that's furthest away) is expanding at close to c.
> My gripe with this show is that it seems to be little more than a vehicle for
> leftist propaganda.
The two examples you cite aren't left-right issues. Interventionism vs. isolationism is usually polarizing, but liberals and conservatives alternate positions regarding this issue depending on the circumstances. You need only to compare the circumstances surrounding the first world wars and the current nid for expansion of the Pax Americana. In that sense, maybe Enterprise writers are just isolationists, and not necessarily liberals.
On the other hand, things like "righteous" violence, pre-emptive strikes, and torture are routinely used and even glorified on current Trek episodes. I'd say pacifism, opposition to institutional violence and abhorrence of first-strike policies are fundamentally liberal, and Trek tramples on these ideas regularly in favor of a more bloodlusty rhetoric.
The AIDS analog was clearly pro-secularist, but again that doesn't necessarily make it liberal propaganda. Even conservative champ Bill O'Reilly, when talking about his stance as an independent, talks about secularism and liberalism as separate (evil) causes, and I think he's essentially correct regarding their separation. Take Turkey - they have a secularist government that is also pretty conservative (right-wing) on the authoritarian axis.
> I think people have realized that his "evil doings" really aren's so bad
> compared to the current administration.
You mean like lobbing cruise missiles into Afghanistan or regime change in Yugoslavia?
I would love to see Democrats stop acting like Republicans with regard to foreign policy (at least). Then at least the candidates would at least be distinguishable.
Why do you have to be so caustic when delivering an otherwise insightful reply? If you are offended by the poster so much then maybe you should take a look around and see that there are worse things to be pissed at besides this one guy's indecisiveness.
mods, this post is admittedly offtopic.
> If those notes sit around for a while. Nobody cares about your life anyways.
> If anybody reads that drivel it's just that they are being polite.
> I can't imagine anything more boring than reading somebody's "travel log".
You probably can't imagine much at all, then. Consider that many popular books and magazines are actually travel logs. Also consider that people who want to go to the same place rely on travel logs and trip reports to inform them about pitfalls and highlights of the journey.
er, quantum computing.
Yes, so far, beer has brought our darkest, most perverse secrets to the surface for all to see. Quantum encryption is just the next logical step. Now mom will know you browse farm porn whether or not you get drunk and tell her.
> Do us a favour guys and also hold your fights somewhere out of the way?
maybe some FPS multiplayer arena - that would save hospital beds AND fit their MO.
> News is straight reporting. ....
> I don't need to hear their bias I just want Who What where why and when
I don't want this, because
1) it's impossible anyway - bias is uncontrollable
2) passive reporting is often inaccurate because it is difficult to get all evidence or context from the empirical facts alone
Who what where why and when don't always yield a good understanding of the truth. Just watch any situational comedy and you'll see this principle demonstrated endlessly.
Journalism is all about interpreting the truth based on empirical facts combined with knowledge of context. Allowing all viewpoints (including what you and I consider bullshit) is bias control. Ideally, you construct your own bullshit filter by listening to as many viewpoints as possible. The truth can often be interpolated in this way.
On a side note, isn't it funny how some people will freely squander their access to free press? People rail against opposing viewpoints (complaining about ultra-right fox or the evil liberal press) and actually squelch them. They never consider that reducing your incoming information to one viewpoint or interpretation is like voluntarily succumbing to spoon-feeding. The truth is that all reporters are biased and it's up to us to listen to all and glean truth, not to filter out "bullshit" and only listen to what makes us feel good. It's ALL bullshit unless you see it with your own eyes.
> Jackie Robinson would not be remotely as important historically if he were not
> black.
I disagree. Jackie Robinson would not be remotely as important historically if he had not changed American baseball. His being black was not his contribution. It is, however, relevant to the story of his contribution.
> Turing would be every bit as important historically if he were not gay.
Turing almost certainly would have been MORE important historically had he not been a victim of discrimination. He was young and barely in his prime when he was essentially expelled from the scientific community.
Both examples show great impact on a profession, and unfair discrimination against particular individual characteristics are relevant to each story. Certainly I agree that Turing being gay didn't cause his potential, but I strongly urge people to consider that his being gay, and the discrimination elicited thereby, is very relevant to the story of what would have been contributed by this man were he not gay.
> I don't how it's relevant to discuss Alan Turing's sexuality in the context of
> his contributions to computer science.
It's only relevant because he was a _persecuted_ gay. Now we know that perpetrators of this particular type of discrimination can be enemies of science. There are always a set of poltically correct ways to discriminate (e.g. awards, reputation, curriculum vitae) and politically incorrect ways to discriminate (gender, age, race, etc). Sexual orientation used to be an unquestionably acceptable criterion for discrimination, and Turing's example shows why that's changing.
> But to have to label him right off the bat everytime his name is uttered is
> absurd.
That's like saying that we shouldn't say Jackie Robinson was black when talking about his accomplishments. His race is central to the the story of what baseball gained by his entry in to game. Turing's sexuality is central to the story of what computer science lost due to Turing's expulsion from the field.
I think successful machines might yield greater turnout, which might clarify where people stand at any given time and provide a more accurately appointed set of leaders. In that sense, I hope we CAN implement more accurate voting, but I think we need to do it in such a way as to minimize the chance of corruption. Even if Diebold doesn't intend to leave the door open, so far they have and that shouldn't be ignored if we want this technological advancement to succeed.
> Your one vote makes little difference in the final outcome of the election.
I've always thought that this was an unfortunate existential conundrum. From a certain view, yes - in the end, the ordinary voter is just a speck of dust on the political landscape - but you could view every action you take in life the same way from the appropriate perspective.
I am only responsible for my vote, no one else's - and even if it only matters to a tiny degree, that is infinitely more than zero, which is fine for me right now. America is still an adequately free place in the sense that there are other forums besides the voting booth with which I can increase the awareness of my position if I wish. My vote and my actions can "matter" in this sense as much as I choose.
> Just consider all the dolts who blew Gore's chance in 2000 by voting with their
> heart for Nader.
Maybe if Gore had been more liberal he would have gotten Green votes. I wouldn't have voted for him in either case, but the moral is that this is just the way the cookie crumbles (ignoring the closeness of the results for simplicity).
True - this phenonmenon is the biggest impediment to using "alternative" office packages.
I always complain to people at work that the biggest problem is that they adopt a product as a standard for both collaboration and presentation... which might be OK, except that maybe 85% of the time they just need a presentation standard (eg PDF). You really only need to standardize on a productivity tool if there are back-and-forth edits. Companies don't recognize this subtelty and lump both together to save money or "complexity" and they really just end up locking themselves into a tenuous lock-step MS upgrade cycle, because collaborative, working formats like xls, ppt, and doc still exhibit minor (occasionally major) incompatibilities with version changes anyway. This ends up being difficult and complex anyway when you have more than one customer or vendor, which is almost always the case.
I think on at least one occasion this had to do with semiconductor trade agreements; specifically, export quotas on sc from Japan.
Then again there's always that urban legend about "that big chip factory" burned down.
> However, computer science is not about programming -- it's about deciding what to program.
Cute profundity. How about this: deciding what to program is usually called marketing.
Engineering and theory are inextricably co-dependent; it should be obvious that one cannot exist without the other. The idea that theory is "pure science" while applied science is somehow peripheral just doesn't follow.
> CS != programming.
I agree, that is why I didn't complain w/ grandparent. Parent was implying that it is not worth it to get a CS "just to program" which sounded to me like elitist rhetoric. Maybe you're right and I misjudged his tone when he referred to rank-and-file programmers as "just code monkeys."
I have to call bullshit on this knee-jerk arrogance.
MANY CS majors become coders, and it is a perfectly acceptable outlet for the skills, knowledge and wisdom gleaned from a good CS degree program.
Just because some people are fortunate enough to be able to pursue a career in academe or in bleeding edge R&D or other theoretical pursuits, does not mean that good programming is not applied computer science.
If anyone believes otherwise, have another gander at the standard courses in a modern CS degree at any reputable university. You'll find tons of software design theory that can be DIRECTLY applied to writing software.
cool, thanks for the correction. i agree, that show rules.
i still think he's have a worse time with his fence, though, if he, let's say, touched it while barefoot and not in shoes.
V=IR
I would think that they all matter to varying degrees depending on the circumstances. For instance, high voltages and low resistances means lots of current.
Try standing barefoot in a puddle and peeing on that electric fence and see if your results are different.
500V should increase chances of a shock or arc, all else being equal (resistance of human body or jaws of life, ground potential, fuse ratings, etc)
you should be inducted into the pun hall of fame ;)
I did some googling and found that there are plenty of sites that seem to describe the downsides of DRM for consumers, but Google News seems bereft of info on any negative impact on consumers of DRM - just based on a few cursory searches, anyway, it looks like the media is just saying "oh, by the way, here it comes."