Yes. Regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong, it's pretty annoying as a user if something you grow dependent on over a few years suddenly disappears.
The Right tried that, and just ended up with the Tea Party obstructing everything. The Left tried it too and got the Occupy movement which never gained enough traction.
Thanks for that summary
on
Boot To Zork
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This is going to sound sarcastic, but in all sincerity, thanks, Slashdot, for posting a geeky story full or technical jargon. You used to be able to come here and find tons of stuff like this: obscure notes with enough confusing details to inspire you to go look something up and maybe even learn a thing or two. Good to know that News for Nerds still does occasionally happen.
Perhaps Bennett Haselton should use an anonymous blog instead of Slashdot to pour out all his half-baked novel-length thoughts. That might be a better way to see how much luck plays a role in determining whether anyone cares what he's blathering about.
I've never quite been comfortable with the idea that we should be disappointed with detailed confirmation of the standard model. Yes there's obviously a more fundamental theory at work that we don't understand yet, but there's no reason that it has to be visible at human-accessible energy scales when the natural (Planck) energy scale of the universe is 16 orders of magnitude larger than the collision energy of the LHC. It's easy to theorize new physics at those energies, but when you don't see anything that shouldn't take away from our wonder at the accuracy of the existing model, which is still behaving nearly flawlessly after almost 50 years.
Color charge is easy: anti-quarks have anti-color, so the right combination of quarks and anti-quarks will still balance the color charge of the composite particle. This is well-known in two-quark particles so why wouldn't it work for four?
Slashdot Mirror
This was on here 6 months ago when the preprint hit arxiv.
Yes. Regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong, it's pretty annoying as a user if something you grow dependent on over a few years suddenly disappears.
There used to be another Google service that let me save, share, and organize Web content...
Well with a name like that, it's not like there was much competition. Ununhexium tried, but he just didn't have enough in him.
That's a long hour.
The summary is an impressive bit of (unattributed) quoting from the article, evoking, the deepest fears of comma abuse.
To be fair the government of the 1960's couldn't launch a website either...
Complain about Timothy all you want, but Bennett Haselton is a completely different problem.
They long ago forgot how to tell the difference.
The Right tried that, and just ended up with the Tea Party obstructing everything. The Left tried it too and got the Occupy movement which never gained enough traction.
This is going to sound sarcastic, but in all sincerity, thanks, Slashdot, for posting a geeky story full or technical jargon. You used to be able to come here and find tons of stuff like this: obscure notes with enough confusing details to inspire you to go look something up and maybe even learn a thing or two. Good to know that News for Nerds still does occasionally happen.
I thought it was a fun read, but I wouldn't have guessed at it winning the Hugo. That said, I'm not well-read enough to put forth an alternative.
That might be true in enterprise, but it certainly isn't in gaming.
Or else you'll end up turning in your company id badge
Also, who's ever heard of a small business defense contractor?
Perhaps Bennett Haselton should use an anonymous blog instead of Slashdot to pour out all his half-baked novel-length thoughts. That might be a better way to see how much luck plays a role in determining whether anyone cares what he's blathering about.
Random small universities always seem to have more money than those more prestigious ones.
is very different from this:
Well at least they seem to have more money on this kind of random programs.
I have no idea what this is doing once you strip out all the buzzwords
They already use one like that. Every letter is thick black line.
The PC market has hardware fragmentation, but you know what operating system you'll be running on. Mobile OSs change much more quickly.
I always find it funny how legal briefs are typically anything but.
Well most of us don't need to drive very far to find the URL bar.
I've never quite been comfortable with the idea that we should be disappointed with detailed confirmation of the standard model. Yes there's obviously a more fundamental theory at work that we don't understand yet, but there's no reason that it has to be visible at human-accessible energy scales when the natural (Planck) energy scale of the universe is 16 orders of magnitude larger than the collision energy of the LHC. It's easy to theorize new physics at those energies, but when you don't see anything that shouldn't take away from our wonder at the accuracy of the existing model, which is still behaving nearly flawlessly after almost 50 years.
Color charge is easy: anti-quarks have anti-color, so the right combination of quarks and anti-quarks will still balance the color charge of the composite particle. This is well-known in two-quark particles so why wouldn't it work for four?
I think I've posted this before in response to that article, but it's amusing that parody of a decade ago is the reality of today.