Exactly! I can never understand that example, because it involves an error on the observers' part: they assume that the order they see photons from an event is the order the events occurred. FAIL.
It's even simpler than that. In the model you just described, time has been relegated to a mere fourth spatial dimension, with a new fifth real time dimension being created. Why a new dimension? Because you can go "back" in the fourth "time" dimension and change things. After that, those things are changed. Hence, you've added a new real time dimension. So as you can see, the concept of time travel itself is based on a misunderstanding of what time is. The past is not a place you can go to like another country; it's merely the state things were in, but are no more. It's as imaginary as anything you can imagine, and has the same possibility of being traveled to. (I know you probably get this, I just wanted to use the context set by your message to further elaborate on the flaws in the concept of time travel).
If you don't like posts modded funny, you can have them not show up. For the rest of us who like a good laugh, we will continue to have them given extra preference.
The concept of time travel itself shows misunderstanding of what time is. It basically posits an extra fifth dimension that's the "real" time, and treats our time as a dimension just like one of the three spatial dimensions. At that point, you could then talk of meta-time-travel, and so on.
Staying alive causes cancer. The proof? If you died the moment you were born, you'd have X chance of cancer. If you stay alive for 50 more years, you clearly have a higher chance, no matter how healthy a lifestyle you lead. Thus, your best remedy to cancer is to avoid prolonging your life. Of course the downside is that your chances of suicide go up to 100%.
I actually was referring to vibration of molecules, e.g. warm air around the bulb. As best as I could understand from the Wikipedia page, only about 10% of the electricity is turned into EM of any type. I took it that the rest is radiated via convection. If it were IR, then yeah, it would be EM (BTW, "visible light" is redundant; light by definition is visible EM).
I DO use my eyes, and it's nice to also have sound for my ears to pick up. I regularly walk/bike in the busy city and sound is very useful for being warned of vehicles coming near. Why is it difficult to grasp that both sensory channels are useful? Again, anyone walking around should take off the headphones, put down the cellphone, and pay attention to walking/cycling/driving, that's for sure.
I was at the Home Depot today and saw you can buy a device which emits TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY WATTS of ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION! Oooga boooga! The radiation is gonna git ya!
If only they were that efficient. Most of that power is given off as heat, which isn't electromagnetic in nature.
Exactly what I do. I carry around one of those demo units from the store that has no electronics in it. I can open it in public and look cool and hip, and never have to recharge it or get exposed to artificial unnatural radiation (the natural kind can't hurt me, or so I've read on many reputable internet sites, for example that timecube one).
Given that everything causes cancer in the state of California, it's natural that they are required to do this. I'm glad I live in a state where not everything causes cancer.
No, you're wrong. Our ears are a very good omni-directional object detection device. Make a two-ton hunk of moving metal silent, and I won't be able to detect it as well when it's behind me, or I visually just didn't see it (yes, it happens). My ears, on the other hand, will very quickly tell me that there's a loud two-ton hunk of moving metal making noise moving near me. And no, I don't wear any headphones or music devices while out walking/bicycling.
You blame it all on people not looking, but there's no reason to eliminate a major sensory channel warning of danger. That said, it'd be nice if they designed a sound for future othewise-silent vehicles that wasn't annoying, didn't carry like the low-frequency of a car engine, yet was easy to hear and recognize.
I remember Java when it first came out. It lacked several features it has now, because it didn't need those complex things from C++. Now it has them, only they had to be compatible with the earlier bytecode, so they're kind of hacky. I chuckle.
Wow, I just came up with a way to halve the size of the language! Instead of the special-case doItFaster(), we can just write doWhatIWant("faster")(doWhatIWant). Bam!
I don't think this study is about legal files; I think it's about files that are legal to distrbute freely. There's a big difference; illegal files would be ones illegal to possess, period. Unless copyright law has changed, it covers distribution, not possession. Pedantic point, maybe, but illegal files really does refer to something, but not merely copyrighted works whose authors don't allow free distribution.
I don't follow. Presumably you knew that it was a contest before you started producing something, so you shouldn't be angry that you didn't win (unless you're a perfectionist). If this model yields cheaper design services, then so be it. There will still be a market for professionals, just not as big.
Who cares. By the time this technology goes commercial, optical discs will be dead as far as selling movies, music and such goes. Maybe they'll have some other more limited uses.
I didn't realize that we were discussing games/movies which claimed realism. If they are, sure, they need to research what real is. Meanwhile, my only criterion for a game/movie is that it be entertaining.
A Microsoft spokesman confirmed the move, explaining that the idea is to "thank" employees for all their work, and make sure that they have experience with Windows Phone 7 devices.
Slashdot Mirror
What, you mean I unknowingly read the article itself? Great, and I was about to break my previous record of going the longest without reading TFA.
Exactly! I can never understand that example, because it involves an error on the observers' part: they assume that the order they see photons from an event is the order the events occurred. FAIL.
It's even simpler than that. In the model you just described, time has been relegated to a mere fourth spatial dimension, with a new fifth real time dimension being created. Why a new dimension? Because you can go "back" in the fourth "time" dimension and change things. After that, those things are changed. Hence, you've added a new real time dimension. So as you can see, the concept of time travel itself is based on a misunderstanding of what time is. The past is not a place you can go to like another country; it's merely the state things were in, but are no more. It's as imaginary as anything you can imagine, and has the same possibility of being traveled to. (I know you probably get this, I just wanted to use the context set by your message to further elaborate on the flaws in the concept of time travel).
If you don't like posts modded funny, you can have them not show up. For the rest of us who like a good laugh, we will continue to have them given extra preference.
The concept of time travel itself shows misunderstanding of what time is. It basically posits an extra fifth dimension that's the "real" time, and treats our time as a dimension just like one of the three spatial dimensions. At that point, you could then talk of meta-time-travel, and so on.
Staying alive causes cancer. The proof? If you died the moment you were born, you'd have X chance of cancer. If you stay alive for 50 more years, you clearly have a higher chance, no matter how healthy a lifestyle you lead. Thus, your best remedy to cancer is to avoid prolonging your life. Of course the downside is that your chances of suicide go up to 100%.
I actually was referring to vibration of molecules, e.g. warm air around the bulb. As best as I could understand from the Wikipedia page, only about 10% of the electricity is turned into EM of any type. I took it that the rest is radiated via convection. If it were IR, then yeah, it would be EM (BTW, "visible light" is redundant; light by definition is visible EM).
I think you probably mean 30-100% more coverage, unless you really mean that AT&T has 2.3 to 3 times the coverage of the next best.
I DO use my eyes, and it's nice to also have sound for my ears to pick up. I regularly walk/bike in the busy city and sound is very useful for being warned of vehicles coming near. Why is it difficult to grasp that both sensory channels are useful? Again, anyone walking around should take off the headphones, put down the cellphone, and pay attention to walking/cycling/driving, that's for sure.
If only they were that efficient. Most of that power is given off as heat, which isn't electromagnetic in nature.
Exactly what I do. I carry around one of those demo units from the store that has no electronics in it. I can open it in public and look cool and hip, and never have to recharge it or get exposed to artificial unnatural radiation (the natural kind can't hurt me, or so I've read on many reputable internet sites, for example that timecube one).
Given that everything causes cancer in the state of California, it's natural that they are required to do this. I'm glad I live in a state where not everything causes cancer.
Maybe it picks out all words besides sex (using a dictionary), then if one of the unmatched segments is "sex", it filters it?
You blame it all on people not looking, but there's no reason to eliminate a major sensory channel warning of danger. That said, it'd be nice if they designed a sound for future othewise-silent vehicles that wasn't annoying, didn't carry like the low-frequency of a car engine, yet was easy to hear and recognize.
I remember Java when it first came out. It lacked several features it has now, because it didn't need those complex things from C++. Now it has them, only they had to be compatible with the earlier bytecode, so they're kind of hacky. I chuckle.
Wow, I just came up with a way to halve the size of the language! Instead of the special-case doItFaster(), we can just write doWhatIWant("faster")(doWhatIWant). Bam!
I don't think this study is about legal files; I think it's about files that are legal to distrbute freely. There's a big difference; illegal files would be ones illegal to possess, period. Unless copyright law has changed, it covers distribution, not possession. Pedantic point, maybe, but illegal files really does refer to something, but not merely copyrighted works whose authors don't allow free distribution.
I don't follow. Presumably you knew that it was a contest before you started producing something, so you shouldn't be angry that you didn't win (unless you're a perfectionist). If this model yields cheaper design services, then so be it. There will still be a market for professionals, just not as big.
Coasters and cool blue-violet laser pointers?
Duh, there's a lot of money at stake with a gambling machine, but just people's lives at stake with medical devices.
I didn't realize that we were discussing games/movies which claimed realism. If they are, sure, they need to research what real is. Meanwhile, my only criterion for a game/movie is that it be entertaining.
That's what you humans thi... uhh, nevermind, yeah, we don't recharge.
I bet they can't wait to receive this gift.
Why waste money on realism that doesn't contribute to the entertainment value of entertainment products?
I wasn't familiar with the latter form of that.