err, neutrinos do have mass, but not as much as stated in the paper. As far as current experiments go neutrinos come in three flavours and interchanging between them is only possible if they have mass. It has been shown in experiments that they change type and hence must have mass.
German TV shows clips from youtube and co
on
Bob Saget 2.0
·
· Score: 2, Informative
As the german private TV sector struggles to save money wherever it can (having recently survived an almost complete crash) shows such as "clip charts" have sprung up, sampling the silliness that people put up on the likes of youtube.
"Faith in science"? What exactly does that mean? Science is a method for coming up with descriptions of how the world works -- descriptions that can in turn be used to make predictions about causes and effects. Faith doesn't enter into it. It either works or it doesn't, depending on the problem domain.
HUH????? Truth is a fundamental concept in science and math. For example all the algebraic manipulation you ever do with equations and inequalities rests on the fact that you've proven a fundamental concept is true and can be applied to transform that expression such that the expression still holds true.
Math, yes certainly, physics/chemistry, certainly not. No matter how much you manipulate the "law" of gravity you're still dealing with numbers and not testing matter directly. The only truths in science are experiments, theories can be nothing but models. (and from what it seems, even general relativity has some rather ugly quirks) When considering modern theories the clear transition from model to reality becomes much more difficult to see because the descriptions are very fundamental. One should not forget however that string theory for example doesn't explain very much yet! (and probably never will)
When dealing with science in general and physics in particular I think one should be very careful about one's approach to the "truth" of a theory (as it cannot be proven, only disproven) and not confuse the model with objective reality. I know that this discussion can go on, after all we measure only numbers, and our theories produce only numbers, therefore, in a materialistic sense, empirically speaking, if the theory allows us to predict measurements it is not just a model but a reproduction of reality. This however is impossible because it does not have the same properties as the "reality" that we're trying to analyse mathematically... and so the argument goes on ad infinitum and becomes too philosphical for science to even attempt to grasp yada yada.... From this point of view, entrusting too much belief into a mathematical description of reality might lead to the same religious fanaticism (in the sense that you defend the physical correctness of your model based solely on mathematical possibilities) with which "true believers" defend their faith even though there is no objective reason to do so (but fortunately for the religious types, there's also none against). It can be even claimed that theorists could be seen as being blinded by their belief in the mathematical nature of reality just as much as believers are blinded by their religious upbringing.
> From my own point of view as a Christian, if something that the Bible appeared to hold as true flatly contradicted what I knew to be true from my own experience then I would have to seriously re-examine either my understanding of the Bible, or my understanding of my experience. If the two are in contradiction, then one is wrong.
boy you must be blind deaf and retarted then, or you don't know how to read
errm.. what exactly is your problem? I took the population of china to be 1.5 billion, 10 percent of which is 150 million (or 130 million as in your case) and 30% of 300 million for the US is 90 million... I think you need to go back to grade school before making stupid comments like that!
And yet the last 150 years have seen a steeper positive temperature deviation from average than the ice ages had negative temperature deviations from average. Also note that ice ages were over periods much longer than 150 years and there is no compelling evidence of a natural cycle causing the current increases. It really does boil down to CO2 and H20 concentrations in the atmosphere and we should better do something against that. (note that CO2 warming causes an increase in sea evaporation which acts as a further positive feedback for the greenhouse effect). Very simple "back of the envelope" calculations will convince you that the cause of global warming is the greenhouse effect and as far as we can see, the main responsible gases are CO2, methane and water vapor as they are very effective at trapping the radiation radiated off by the planet due to their bond structure. The radiation emitted by the planet has a characteristic temperature of 258 K whereas for some reason we hover around 283 K on average. The power trapped by the atmosphere is about as large as that of the solar radiation.
As for your sun hypothesis: the deviations in incoming radiation are not sufficient to cause such large fluctuations. Further there is a long time delay associated with incoming radiation and the eventual emission and subsequent trapping of heat by the atmoshpere. If you were to shut the sun off right this moment (disregarding the subsequent gravitational collapse and the inherent destruction of our little planet) it would take around a week for earth temperatures to drop below night averages.
Even from a sceptical point of view the correlation between CO2/CH4 and temperature and the ability of the atmosphere to trap so much heat must be compelling evidence for human-caused global warming. Please take note that, if the ice core borings are correct and correctly interpreted (there are many assumptions, such as the amount of time that elapsed from the momemt the ice came down as snow until when it was completely sealed off and solid, thus not allowing any more gas exchange), we have the highest CO2 levels ever and they are on the rise.
Or you could just have 4 to 6 virtual desktops and a list of ALL programs that can be accessed using alt-TAB, without messing with all those pesky osx features... man I hate osx even more than windows.
The last time I was on Oxford Street in London I was pondering whether I should take a look at the device a friend of mine made a lot of money with (by buying stock about 8 months ago and selling it at the peak). I guess I should have taken the chance, now I won't see it anymore!
The problem see, is that when you're older (above the age of 6) you will be replaced because you're too heavy! There were hundreds of children injured in camel races and some of the injuries were fatal.
except that hardware has the important difference of perfect interdependency at least in theory. By algorithmically running through all possible usage patterns "show stoppers" should be easy to find shouldn't they? Any chip designers around to clarify?
normally one would have double-glazed windows and thin curtains which allow circulation. This forms a layer of hot air in front of the window and is the most efficient way of heating a house... stop your gibberish, british houses are crap (I live in a 1960's "working class" terrace and it's horribly cold in winter!)
When the provider is US Government, it may be the only way... Still, there is no reason for Galileo to be incompatible with the existing GPS clients, that's just evil...
it's fully compatible as it uses both its own and the GPS protocol
I remember reading (In PhysicsWorld published by the IoP [www.iop.org] that the political reasoning behind the GPS workalike system was basically that the United States cannot be trusted to provide GPS functionality (as happened on 9/11) in emergencies and during exceptional circumstances. As more and more businesses (and most transport) depend on GPS functionality the European Union has decided to build something more thrustworthy and the improvements are just a side-effect. In the end, both parties will benefit. There was something about jamming eachother's networks but I can't exactly remember it... anyone?
I still don't understand Apple's pricing theories. Althouh I can understand variations up to 10% due to differential occupational expenditures, I cannot see how the company can warrant that the price is a whooping 3300$ (!!) [2729] for the lower-end macbook in Belgium/Luxembourg!!
Slashdot Mirror
err, neutrinos do have mass, but not as much as stated in the paper. As far as current experiments go neutrinos come in three flavours and interchanging between them is only possible if they have mass. It has been shown in experiments that they change type and hence must have mass.
As the german private TV sector struggles to save money wherever it can (having recently survived an almost complete crash) shows such as "clip charts" have sprung up, sampling the silliness that people put up on the likes of youtube.
"Faith in science"? What exactly does that mean? Science is a method for coming up with descriptions of how the world works -- descriptions that can in turn be used to make predictions about causes and effects. Faith doesn't enter into it. It either works or it doesn't, depending on the problem domain.
:)
Tell that to the string theorists
HUH????? Truth is a fundamental concept in science and math. For example all the algebraic manipulation you ever do with equations and inequalities rests on the fact that you've proven a fundamental concept is true and can be applied to transform that expression such that the expression still holds true.
Math, yes certainly, physics/chemistry, certainly not. No matter how much you manipulate the "law" of gravity you're still dealing with numbers and not testing matter directly. The only truths in science are experiments, theories can be nothing but models. (and from what it seems, even general relativity has some rather ugly quirks) When considering modern theories the clear transition from model to reality becomes much more difficult to see because the descriptions are very fundamental. One should not forget however that string theory for example doesn't explain very much yet! (and probably never will)
When dealing with science in general and physics in particular I think one should be very careful about one's approach to the "truth" of a theory (as it cannot be proven, only disproven) and not confuse the model with objective reality. I know that this discussion can go on, after all we measure only numbers, and our theories produce only numbers, therefore, in a materialistic sense, empirically speaking, if the theory allows us to predict measurements it is not just a model but a reproduction of reality. This however is impossible because it does not have the same properties as the "reality" that we're trying to analyse mathematically... and so the argument goes on ad infinitum and becomes too philosphical for science to even attempt to grasp yada yada.... From this point of view, entrusting too much belief into a mathematical description of reality might lead to the same religious fanaticism (in the sense that you defend the physical correctness of your model based solely on mathematical possibilities) with which "true believers" defend their faith even though there is no objective reason to do so (but fortunately for the religious types, there's also none against). It can be even claimed that theorists could be seen as being blinded by their belief in the mathematical nature of reality just as much as believers are blinded by their religious upbringing.
JOURNALISM is not what this site is famous for :)
> From my own point of view as a Christian, if something that the Bible appeared to hold as true flatly contradicted what I knew to be true from my own experience then I would have to seriously re-examine either my understanding of the Bible, or my understanding of my experience. If the two are in contradiction, then one is wrong.
boy you must be blind deaf and retarted then, or you don't know how to read
right-click the toolbar, click customize and drag the search bar out of the toolbar into the window that openen up when you clicked customize!
Because Firefox does not gain from making Google a default, it is more permisable
3 590756 Even though I'm an avid M$ basher I don't really see what they're doing wrong here. What else should they default to? Also, if you've set another engine in the IE6 preferences for autosearch, you'll get that engine rather than msn. http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/04/30/587373 .aspx
You never read this did you? http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/
They might think about including some other options by default though just to make the courts happy.
errm.. what exactly is your problem? I took the population of china to be 1.5 billion, 10 percent of which is 150 million (or 130 million as in your case) and 30% of 300 million for the US is 90 million... I think you need to go back to grade school before making stupid comments like that!
150 million people versus 90 million people is not a big difference... the problem IS with both and with everyone else wasting energy without thought.
I speak 5 languages fluently and play videogames, so go hide in your cave :)
And yet the last 150 years have seen a steeper positive temperature deviation from average than the ice ages had negative temperature deviations from average. Also note that ice ages were over periods much longer than 150 years and there is no compelling evidence of a natural cycle causing the current increases. It really does boil down to CO2 and H20 concentrations in the atmosphere and we should better do something against that. (note that CO2 warming causes an increase in sea evaporation which acts as a further positive feedback for the greenhouse effect). Very simple "back of the envelope" calculations will convince you that the cause of global warming is the greenhouse effect and as far as we can see, the main responsible gases are CO2, methane and water vapor as they are very effective at trapping the radiation radiated off by the planet due to their bond structure. The radiation emitted by the planet has a characteristic temperature of 258 K whereas for some reason we hover around 283 K on average. The power trapped by the atmosphere is about as large as that of the solar radiation.
As for your sun hypothesis: the deviations in incoming radiation are not sufficient to cause such large fluctuations. Further there is a long time delay associated with incoming radiation and the eventual emission and subsequent trapping of heat by the atmoshpere. If you were to shut the sun off right this moment (disregarding the subsequent gravitational collapse and the inherent destruction of our little planet) it would take around a week for earth temperatures to drop below night averages.
Even from a sceptical point of view the correlation between CO2/CH4 and temperature and the ability of the atmosphere to trap so much heat must be compelling evidence for human-caused global warming. Please take note that, if the ice core borings are correct and correctly interpreted (there are many assumptions, such as the amount of time that elapsed from the momemt the ice came down as snow until when it was completely sealed off and solid, thus not allowing any more gas exchange), we have the highest CO2 levels ever and they are on the rise.
Or you could just have 4 to 6 virtual desktops and a list of ALL programs that can be accessed using alt-TAB, without messing with all those pesky osx features... man I hate osx even more than windows.
Don't worry, I'm not English. I appreciate proper food and good housing.
The last time I was on Oxford Street in London I was pondering whether I should take a look at the device a friend of mine made a lot of money with (by buying stock about 8 months ago and selling it at the peak). I guess I should have taken the chance, now I won't see it anymore!
The problem see, is that when you're older (above the age of 6) you will be replaced because you're too heavy! There were hundreds of children injured in camel races and some of the injuries were fatal.
except that hardware has the important difference of perfect interdependency at least in theory. By algorithmically running through all possible usage patterns "show stoppers" should be easy to find shouldn't they? Any chip designers around to clarify?
normally one would have double-glazed windows and thin curtains which allow circulation. This forms a layer of hot air in front of the window and is the most efficient way of heating a house... stop your gibberish, british houses are crap (I live in a 1960's "working class" terrace and it's horribly cold in winter!)
I wonder what the scholarship requires in order to get it. Highscores? Maybe a very high CPL rating in either of Counterstrike Source or Quake III ?
it's fully compatible as it uses both its own and the GPS protocol
I remember reading (In PhysicsWorld published by the IoP [www.iop.org] that the political reasoning behind the GPS workalike system was basically that the United States cannot be trusted to provide GPS functionality (as happened on 9/11) in emergencies and during exceptional circumstances. As more and more businesses (and most transport) depend on GPS functionality the European Union has decided to build something more thrustworthy and the improvements are just a side-effect. In the end, both parties will benefit. There was something about jamming eachother's networks but I can't exactly remember it... anyone?
No low-end macbook for us Europeans... but still... 650 price difference is absolutely crazy!
Well.. 800$ is actually anything but reasonable if I think about it!
Ah, my fault! They seem to not even offer the low end version... Well, there's still a price difference but it's more reasonable!
I still don't understand Apple's pricing theories. Althouh I can understand variations up to 10% due to differential occupational expenditures, I cannot see how the company can warrant that the price is a whooping 3300$ (!!) [2729] for the lower-end macbook in Belgium/Luxembourg!!