There's been stupid conspiracy theory class criticism of every president I've lived under on every possible point. (Well, I can't remember so much about JFK. I was one year old when he was assassinated.). With Obama, it can be racial, or that he's a muslim or the birther nonsense
But there's also yet to be one that didn't deserve well thought out criticism of policy.
"If people consistently think your criticism has racial overtones "
It's certainly not consistently, but has happened. Mostly I've chuckled at how ridiculous it is, or replied: In the words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."
Laughing at misplaced righteous outrage usually works a lot better than replying in kind.
After almost 7 years of implications that I'm racist when I disagree with the surveillance and foreign policies of the current administration, I can look forward to now being called a sexist instead!
Good gravy. You'd better not watch any Monty Python or cartoons. The mental overload from taking seriously all of that intentional silliness might cause your brain to BSOD.
Unless you've been under a rock since 1983, you already know largely what position he's going to take when you go to his talk.
Complaining about it is like going out of your way to attend a Baptist Tent Meeting and then complaining that they were evangelizing.
I disagree with him on a number of areas (Surprise! Must be the first time someone has disagreed with RMS.), but he's worth listening to. Often there's a kernel of clue in what the more extreme types say.
A number of us brought that up in the questions session when he spoke at the University of Illinois back on March 16th. He hadn't mentioned it in his talk and didn't have much to say on it. Good that he's addressing it more now.
That might work until the word gets around that your call center only hires those that use FF or other non-default browser.
And, yes, the word does get around if it's major employer and it's a consistent policy. There was an AOL support call center in Albuquerque while I was there in the 90s, and word about the right things to say when interviewing there was pretty quickly available.
You set up an open access, anyone can edit, system like Wikipedia, and you're surprised when people edit it when they might have a vested interest?
This is the very reason why Wikipedia is a poor source on some political or controversial issues. Usually it's better for some of the technical issues, but not always.
It's a powerful tool, but trying to make it something that it's not, a guaranteed to be unbiased source, is a bit unrealistic.
If it shortened all dimensions equally and at the same time everywhere, it would be difficult. But you're looking for a difference in shortening (or lengthening) of one arm of the detector (or the test masses in that arm) relative to the other.
It's a bit waves on the surface of a pond. Sometimes, they expand equally in all directions and form a circular pattern. Sometimes they are different in different directions. This can detect that difference.
Even if the wave is symmetric in all directions, the squeezing/stretching can reach the arms of the detector at different times, just like the points on a circular ripple will reach the short at different times.
Now, of course this is assuming that the waves travel at a certain finite speed (the speed of light as far as we know). If they traveled instantly so the change was everywhere all at once, things would be different.
But, we have pretty solid reasons to believe that they don't travel instantly: That Nobel prize in 1993, I mentioned for example. The amount of energy lost in gravity waves was that of a traveling wave of finite speed, not something that traveled instantly.
Slashdot Mirror
"You've made it clear that you listen to rush Limbaugh"
This is a great example of the word "assume" making an "ass" out of "u" and "me".
Fair warning. I get to use this in conversation over lunch. Should get quite a laugh from the actual Beck and Limbaugh dittoheads around the shop. :)
There's been stupid conspiracy theory class criticism of every president I've lived under on every possible point. (Well, I can't remember so much about JFK. I was one year old when he was assassinated.). With Obama, it can be racial, or that he's a muslim or the birther nonsense
But there's also yet to be one that didn't deserve well thought out criticism of policy.
Just create a web site lauding ISIS (or the little green men in Ukraine, or the North Koreans, etc. There's a long list.).
You're guaranteed to have all your data backed up on the best quality archival storage the US government can find!
Just don't get too over the top. Predator drones, you know. ;)
"If people consistently think your criticism has racial overtones "
It's certainly not consistently, but has happened. Mostly I've chuckled at how ridiculous it is, or replied: In the words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."
Laughing at misplaced righteous outrage usually works a lot better than replying in kind.
Exactly. Doesn't matter what you say, you're going to be the devil incarnate to someone.
Perhaps I'd get called that literally if I criticized Cruz or Huckabee.
I must say that being the prince of Hell would be quite a promotion compared to the fat 50 something geek I thought I was. ;)
After almost 7 years of implications that I'm racist when I disagree with the surveillance and foreign policies of the current administration, I can look forward to now being called a sexist instead!
Free at last!
"The United Launch Alliance is an unholy union"
Unholy union. Is that like a seamless joint?
So, you're saying you're a Republican?
Obviously the old Usenet adage still applies: "There is no ironic humor so blatant that someone on the net wont take it seriously."
"Can the government see my junk"
If the NSA people are that into seeing the junk of a 50 something fat geek, they can have all the look they want.
Frankly, I and much of Slashdot would prefer Natalie Portman (even after becoming a mom), but I guess there's no accounting for taste.
Yeah, I thought they went a bit far for a first date. ;)
"The next president will be either Jeb Bush, or Hillary Clinton"
Making such an utterly conventional wisdom prediction anonymously so no-one can say you were wrong after 2016?
I dub thee the Anonymous-Uber-Coward.
Good gravy. You'd better not watch any Monty Python or cartoons. The mental overload from taking seriously all of that intentional silliness might cause your brain to BSOD.
But I can't resist a flashback to a 1980s Wendy's commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Very nice...
Unless you've been under a rock since 1983, you already know largely what position he's going to take when you go to his talk.
Complaining about it is like going out of your way to attend a Baptist Tent Meeting and then complaining that they were evangelizing.
I disagree with him on a number of areas (Surprise! Must be the first time someone has disagreed with RMS.), but he's worth listening to. Often there's a kernel of clue in what the more extreme types say.
A number of us brought that up in the questions session when he spoke at the University of Illinois back on March 16th. He hadn't mentioned it in his talk and didn't have much to say on it. Good that he's addressing it more now.
We demand all natural chemical free son-in-laws!
That might work until the word gets around that your call center only hires those that use FF or other non-default browser.
And, yes, the word does get around if it's major employer and it's a consistent policy. There was an AOL support call center in Albuquerque while I was there in the 90s, and word about the right things to say when interviewing there was pretty quickly available.
double plus ungood.
You set up an open access, anyone can edit, system like Wikipedia, and you're surprised when people edit it when they might have a vested interest?
This is the very reason why Wikipedia is a poor source on some political or controversial issues. Usually it's better for some of the technical issues, but not always.
It's a powerful tool, but trying to make it something that it's not, a guaranteed to be unbiased source, is a bit unrealistic.
On thing is for certain: The people in the video are quite safe from charges of thought crime.
I think we can safely say there was damn little intelligent thought happening there.
You mean Freon as in R-11 or R-12 which increase the ozone hole and were banned? (It's Dupont's trademark. Wonder if they asked first.)
Is the next release gonna be named Thalidomide? Or maybe Dimethyl Mercury?
Oh no! There's a space nutter behind you. Run! Save yourself. I'll try to hold them off.
Take this tinfoil hat. It may keep them from corrupting you telepathically!
"Shimakaze is best fleet girl"
Very nice, but I think I'll vote for Akagi from the anime version.
(Of course, I'm even more of an Arpeggio of Blue Steel fan. Haruna is da bomb. :)
If it shortened all dimensions equally and at the same time everywhere, it would be difficult. But you're looking for a difference in shortening (or lengthening) of one arm of the detector (or the test masses in that arm) relative to the other.
It's a bit waves on the surface of a pond. Sometimes, they expand equally in all directions and form a circular pattern. Sometimes they are different in different directions. This can detect that difference.
Even if the wave is symmetric in all directions, the squeezing/stretching can reach the arms of the detector at different times, just like the points on a circular ripple will reach the short at different times.
Now, of course this is assuming that the waves travel at a certain finite speed (the speed of light as far as we know). If they traveled instantly so the change was everywhere all at once, things would be different.
But, we have pretty solid reasons to believe that they don't travel instantly: That Nobel prize in 1993, I mentioned for example. The amount of energy lost in gravity waves was that of a traveling wave of finite speed, not something that traveled instantly.