I think the fact that he defended himself vigorously after his brother's death shows he was not a forced party in that duo. If your monster evil brother is finally dead you'd be more resigned to whatever comes next.
But vacuum is far from nothing, from what I've read: it has infinite energy and a very complex structure, in terms of quantum physics. What we call "matter" is also a manifestation of energy (literally). So the universe is never empty, energy-wise, it just always appears differently.
And even if you do end up with 100s of 1000s of real users, the app and therefore the architecture will be different than what you're projecting in your mind now. "Premature optimization" is right on the money.
One thing re Bing Bang that now makes sense with the Higgs is this: fundamental particles that make up the material world have zero volume each. Mass is just a property of those zero-volume particles like charge is. So the total sum of volumes of all particles in the universe is exactly zero. It is not inconceivable that some force was keeping them all together in a singular point. Their total mass is finite (though huge), but the volume is zero, hence infinite density.
And as someone said below, the Big Bang theory is an inference, not a belief. Assuming that all of universe can be explained with math and that all that exists is the material world is a belief.
Neither was I until I saw this video by PhD Comics, about three months before Higgs discovery: http://vimeo.com/41038445. I checked with some physics PhD friends and they confirmed that it is an implication of the Standard Model. Protons, for example, are systems of quarks moving around each other, and quarks like electrons have zero volume. In some cases two different fundamental particles can be at exactly the same point in space. (However "different" and "point" and "space" and even "be" is defined by the SM.)
It's the craziest thing. Like when you remember something from a dream, say a car, and know the car wasn't made of anything solid, you can look at anything in reality and know it's essentially the same thing here.
Quite the opposite, it's the most exciting discovery because it confirms the standard model's idea that all the particles that make this material world are point particles -- particles with zero volume. Not just infinitely small but zero. The entire world is made of nothing, of moving twists in space. 100% empty.
For no particular reason I'm going to toot my own horn -- I can't say I *saw* Groupon failing, but was certainly hoping for it:
Re:This is what we value in this country (Score:1)
by iMadeGhostzilla (1851560) on Saturday March 19 2011, @01:05AM (#35538564)
> This is what we value in this country. Companies that spam coupons for the masses to buy more shit they don't need.
Thank you! I thought I was going crazy seeing how so many people even *here* think it's cool, and these are people who are used to creating value. If I ever wanted to see a concept fail, it's this one.
Because Assange himself is a private person with lots of things to hide, he is able to think in terms of what it takes to get secrets out -- that is his obsession. Someone who spent all his life completely open, with nothing to hide, would not know the minds of secretive people and could not have made WikiLeaks.
Hit the worst offenders first, then from that imbalance let them start a patent war -- use their nuclear weapons -- among themselves until the whole system unravels. Might that be possible?
They are forced to make stupid, desperate attempts at safety like these because they are 1) in charge of public safety as necessary for the state to function, and 2) unable to address the bigger issue -- preventing deranged people from getting hold on incredibly lethal Big Fucking Guns.
Preventing, in facts, *large numbers* of deranged people from getting hold on BFGs.
Maybe that fat is good for you? Given your level of activity, there may be a reason why the system that is your specific body works that way. Who knows, if you could make that extra reserve disappear suddenly maybe you'd get sick or start malfunctioning in unknown ways.
IMO being cut is an idea; being agile and healthy is real.
I think the rest of the world should organize crowd-sourced reexamination requests and get at them. Apple first, then others.
"A request for a reexamination can be filed by anyone at anytime during the period of enforceability of a patent. To request a reexamination, one must submit a “request for reexamination,” pay a substantial fee, and provide an explanation of the new reasons why the patent is invalid based on prior art. "
The post shows how the military controls distribution and usage of weapons and ammunition to prevent accidents. How would that be an argument against gun control?
Besides battery life -- with book readers, less is more. When I read a book on Kindle I don't have an urge to check email or Web because Kindle really doesn't do that well. That lack increases my pleasure of reading.
No what I meant is there will always be new state of the art and you'll need real people to support that new state of the art, until it becomes so commonplace that it can be automated -- but by than new state of the art will arrive that needs real people to support it. And the point was that more state of the art creates more opportunity for new states of the art.
For example automation of iPhone/iPad production (there was a lot of automation previously) enabled mass production of those devices that in turn enabled hordes of people to work on selling them, writing apps for them, designing cases, etc. (True for any other new tech, using iStuff as an example since the topic is Apple. Also not debating the real value of all that stuff here.)
One thing about technological progress is the more new stuff you have, the more new stuff you can do. And in all the phases of doing the new stuff you need people. They all need to readjust and learn to help with the new stuff, but you still need them.
The limit, of course, are the natural resources, but that's another story.
Spot on. "[T]he measuring device has been constructed by the observer, and we have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Heisenberg, Werner (1958). Physics and Philosophy.
Well the guy who posted "First" sounds like an aggressive atheist: "Religious people are fucking stupid, delusional idiots anyway."
In truth I think that aggressive atheism is more of a response to aggressive Christianity. But neither one is spending much time reflecting on their own beliefs, as they are so busy with that of others'.
What I find common in aggressive atheists and aggressive Christians is they both believe the only option for religion is the, well, aggressive Christians' kind. That's a very narrow view of the world and its history.
Same thing with text: if you re-read it and it's different, it's a dream. Another one: jump, and if you come down slowly (like you're on Moon gravity), you know you're dreaming.
I just saw this image ad on the site (somehow made it through AdBlock): "Lose inches AND pounds with no hunger or exercise. Lose 5 lbs/week on average and look great! See how... " which makes me think you may be right, about the quality of the article and the site (named "medicaldaily.com") overall. People who chose to advertise there probably did it for a reason.
Correct me if I'm wrong... but there seems to be something even more significant coming from this: the Higgs discovery confirms the Standard Model's claim that electrons, quarks etc. of which stuff is made are point particles that have zero volume. Not just infinitely small, not just less than Planck's length, but zero. They get their mass "charge" from the Higgs field, but they are not tiny balls of solid matter, they are points designated in space. So the total sum volume of all the fundamental particles that make the Sun, this planet, each one of us, is exactly zero.
So it follows there is nothing solid, nothing material underneath this reality. There is only an illusion of solidity coming from the electromagnetic/nuclear interaction of those points in space. But the whole world is like a dream, empty of any substance.
Am I missing something? One sort of check is that in light of this the Big Bang makes sense, you can certainly fit all of the universe in a zero-sized point when everything that makes it is no larger than a zero-sized point.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the fact that he defended himself vigorously after his brother's death shows he was not a forced party in that duo. If your monster evil brother is finally dead you'd be more resigned to whatever comes next.
But vacuum is far from nothing, from what I've read: it has infinite energy and a very complex structure, in terms of quantum physics. What we call "matter" is also a manifestation of energy (literally). So the universe is never empty, energy-wise, it just always appears differently.
And even if you do end up with 100s of 1000s of real users, the app and therefore the architecture will be different than what you're projecting in your mind now. "Premature optimization" is right on the money.
One thing re Bing Bang that now makes sense with the Higgs is this: fundamental particles that make up the material world have zero volume each. Mass is just a property of those zero-volume particles like charge is. So the total sum of volumes of all particles in the universe is exactly zero. It is not inconceivable that some force was keeping them all together in a singular point. Their total mass is finite (though huge), but the volume is zero, hence infinite density.
And as someone said below, the Big Bang theory is an inference, not a belief. Assuming that all of universe can be explained with math and that all that exists is the material world is a belief.
Neither was I until I saw this video by PhD Comics, about three months before Higgs discovery: http://vimeo.com/41038445. I checked with some physics PhD friends and they confirmed that it is an implication of the Standard Model. Protons, for example, are systems of quarks moving around each other, and quarks like electrons have zero volume. In some cases two different fundamental particles can be at exactly the same point in space. (However "different" and "point" and "space" and even "be" is defined by the SM.)
It's the craziest thing. Like when you remember something from a dream, say a car, and know the car wasn't made of anything solid, you can look at anything in reality and know it's essentially the same thing here.
Quite the opposite, it's the most exciting discovery because it confirms the standard model's idea that all the particles that make this material world are point particles -- particles with zero volume. Not just infinitely small but zero. The entire world is made of nothing, of moving twists in space. 100% empty.
That's exactly the sort of thing those financial analysts should know. That they don't just shows how useless they are, and Motley Fool in particular.
For no particular reason I'm going to toot my own horn -- I can't say I *saw* Groupon failing, but was certainly hoping for it:
Re:This is what we value in this country (Score:1)
by iMadeGhostzilla (1851560) on Saturday March 19 2011, @01:05AM (#35538564)
> This is what we value in this country. Companies that spam coupons for the masses to buy more shit they don't need.
Thank you! I thought I was going crazy seeing how so many people even *here* think it's cool, and these are people who are used to creating value. If I ever wanted to see a concept fail, it's this one.
Because Assange himself is a private person with lots of things to hide, he is able to think in terms of what it takes to get secrets out -- that is his obsession. Someone who spent all his life completely open, with nothing to hide, would not know the minds of secretive people and could not have made WikiLeaks.
What if we the people pool our resources, find patents with prior art, and submit requests for reexamination?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination
Hit the worst offenders first, then from that imbalance let them start a patent war -- use their nuclear weapons -- among themselves until the whole system unravels. Might that be possible?
They are forced to make stupid, desperate attempts at safety like these because they are 1) in charge of public safety as necessary for the state to function, and 2) unable to address the bigger issue -- preventing deranged people from getting hold on incredibly lethal Big Fucking Guns.
Preventing, in facts, *large numbers* of deranged people from getting hold on BFGs.
Maybe that fat is good for you? Given your level of activity, there may be a reason why the system that is your specific body works that way. Who knows, if you could make that extra reserve disappear suddenly maybe you'd get sick or start malfunctioning in unknown ways.
IMO being cut is an idea; being agile and healthy is real.
I think the rest of the world should organize crowd-sourced reexamination requests and get at them. Apple first, then others.
"A request for a reexamination can be filed by anyone at anytime during the period of enforceability of a patent. To request a reexamination, one must submit a “request for reexamination,” pay a substantial fee, and provide an explanation of the new reasons why the patent is invalid based on prior art. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination
Granted it depends on how big the substantial fee is. But that's one more Kickstarter project I'd gladly contribute to.
My bad, I missed Kup's posting and thought you were replying to alen.
However I admit I still don't see how the fact that some rules will be broken is an argument against having any rules in the first place.
The post shows how the military controls distribution and usage of weapons and ammunition to prevent accidents. How would that be an argument against gun control?
Besides battery life -- with book readers, less is more. When I read a book on Kindle I don't have an urge to check email or Web because Kindle really doesn't do that well. That lack increases my pleasure of reading.
would interfere with sound from the radio station, I discovered as a kid. And just when I had thought the Spectrum couldn't be any cooler...!
No what I meant is there will always be new state of the art and you'll need real people to support that new state of the art, until it becomes so commonplace that it can be automated -- but by than new state of the art will arrive that needs real people to support it. And the point was that more state of the art creates more opportunity for new states of the art.
For example automation of iPhone/iPad production (there was a lot of automation previously) enabled mass production of those devices that in turn enabled hordes of people to work on selling them, writing apps for them, designing cases, etc. (True for any other new tech, using iStuff as an example since the topic is Apple. Also not debating the real value of all that stuff here.)
One thing about technological progress is the more new stuff you have, the more new stuff you can do. And in all the phases of doing the new stuff you need people. They all need to readjust and learn to help with the new stuff, but you still need them.
The limit, of course, are the natural resources, but that's another story.
Spot on. "[T]he measuring device has been constructed by the observer, and we have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Heisenberg, Werner (1958). Physics and Philosophy.
Well the guy who posted "First" sounds like an aggressive atheist: "Religious people are fucking stupid, delusional idiots anyway."
In truth I think that aggressive atheism is more of a response to aggressive Christianity. But neither one is spending much time reflecting on their own beliefs, as they are so busy with that of others'.
Including Einstein, I presume?
What I find common in aggressive atheists and aggressive Christians is they both believe the only option for religion is the, well, aggressive Christians' kind. That's a very narrow view of the world and its history.
Same thing with text: if you re-read it and it's different, it's a dream. Another one: jump, and if you come down slowly (like you're on Moon gravity), you know you're dreaming.
I just saw this image ad on the site (somehow made it through AdBlock): "Lose inches AND pounds with no hunger or exercise. Lose 5 lbs/week on average and look great! See how... " which makes me think you may be right, about the quality of the article and the site (named "medicaldaily.com") overall. People who chose to advertise there probably did it for a reason.
Correct me if I'm wrong... but there seems to be something even more significant coming from this: the Higgs discovery confirms the Standard Model's claim that electrons, quarks etc. of which stuff is made are point particles that have zero volume. Not just infinitely small, not just less than Planck's length, but zero. They get their mass "charge" from the Higgs field, but they are not tiny balls of solid matter, they are points designated in space. So the total sum volume of all the fundamental particles that make the Sun, this planet, each one of us, is exactly zero.
So it follows there is nothing solid, nothing material underneath this reality. There is only an illusion of solidity coming from the electromagnetic/nuclear interaction of those points in space. But the whole world is like a dream, empty of any substance.
Am I missing something? One sort of check is that in light of this the Big Bang makes sense, you can certainly fit all of the universe in a zero-sized point when everything that makes it is no larger than a zero-sized point.