We can spend billions of dollars for useless weapons, but can't bother to spend the necessary money to keep our infrastructure from crumbling. What a fine use of our tax dollars!
Presumably that's because the defense contractors that make these toys are traded on Wall Street, but most of the companies that fix rusty bridges and patch up potholes aren't.
Interesting, but I don't think this would happen, as neutrinos don't have charge. The Cherenkov radiation is an electromagnetic effect, so it does not work on neutrinos.
The article made the analogy, but I don't think they were saying it was the exact same mechanism. Something about electrons moving faster than light in water allowing them to shed energy by emitting light; the difference in speeds being the essential ingredient... (IANAPhysicist, obviously).
Unfortunately I can't even remember where I read it. Thought it was the Badass Tronomer's site, but I don't see it there.
I read somewhere just yesterday that a paper is out showing that FTL neutrinos would radiate away their energy Chernikov style, so if they really were FTL the Italian team wouldn't have measured the full flux in their experiments.
Supposedly this put the nail in the coffin for the FTL explanation; the OPERA group is really going out on a limb now.
Easy, if that small group is a small group of bankers, they can very easily threaten the economy of a whole country. Heck, they can even threaten the economy of the whole world.
The actual reason city officials are hostile to them hasn't got anything to do with a threat to the economy. It's because they threaten to build political support for reducing the privileges of the privileged classes. We can't allow *that*.
Indeed that is what became of classified material I have dealt with. Shredded using a military cross-cut shedder (output pieces smaller than 1x10mm), mixed thoroughly, and then incinerated using a purpose built belt-fed, gas fired machine.
I bought a cheap home shredder about a year ago, and it crosscuts. Makes reassembly unimaginably more difficult. (I think mine produces more like 2mm wide, but still.)
And if you don't have an incinerator, just pour the crosscut confetti into a recycle bin where all your other documents go. If you think reassembling one document would be difficult, consider starting from a bucket where the scraps of dozens or hundreds of documents are mixed indiscriminately.
Re:WTF does that have to do with IQ?
on
2011 Geek IQ Test
·
· Score: 1
I'm all in favour of net neutrality, but I'm sorry, no private company could possibly screw up things as bad as when the government gets involved and starts "regulating".
So, did California get Enron'd before you were born?
Or are you just jerking your knee to the tune of a political mantra?
Some conservatives are in favor of privatizing prisons, traffic stops, and even the kicking in of doors.
There's that myth of American politics again.
These aren't "conservative" issues, they're issues for the party that pretends to be conservative (to lure people into voting against their own self interests) but is in fact simply looking out for the rich. The Republican "base" is billionaires.
Anything that puts public money in their pockets is "conservative" policy under the American myth, and anything that taxes them for the good of the Republic is "liberal" policy under that same myth.
And BTW... where were the phalanxes of baton-wielding policemen during the Tea Party protests? Oh, wait, those people weren't any threat to the unlimited ability of the rich to get richer, so mayors didn't see any need to find excuses to evict them or beat them up.
I am the High Priest of tinkiwinkiwankerism. Everyone who gives me $300 and kisses my unwashed behind will be rewarded with eternal bliss; everyone else will suffer eternal punishment.
What does Pascal's "logic" tell you you should do?
The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes religion is a yes-no question. His way or the highway.
But what if there is a god, not the one he believes in, who tolerates atheism but punishes people for worshiping the competition?
Or any of a million other permutations of unknowable "reality" that you could conjecture?
Pascal's Wager is a glaringly gratuitous mechanism for self-justification. Childish, even. It only works for people who have already made up their minds.
So what's to argue about? Haught claims that "materialism" dwells in the heart of science educators, which he views as a religion. So I guess this is an argument about one man's notions that we worship "materialism," and that religion should be given equal time, even though he doesn't dispute the findings of modern science. So the argument isn't about the structure of the universe or the findings of modern science, but giving equal time to "religion" because science is a worship of "materialism"? Pretty thin gruel for a debate, since "materialism" exists as a religion only in the mind of Haught. Funny, the science magazines I read have no mention of this "materialism" he speaks of.
This is common fare from creationists. They lose before the argument starts if they agree to argue on the basis of evidence. So many of them try to play it as "my theology is as legitimate as your Materialist philosophy".
I know a former protestant minister, very religious, who accepts the findings of geology about the age of the Earth.
As I understand it, the basics were all *discovered* by religious types.
I know a non-religious person who believes in alien visitations. This is subjective, but I find no correlation between rational thinking and personal belief systems. It seems to be based on the individual, not the religion.
The whole notion of debates baffles me. Why are we interested in who can pin the other to the mat in a short debate, when there are huge piles of data and analysis available to anyone who is actually interested in the subject.
Debates are PR stunts. Entertainment. You're more likely to learn something on Slashdot than you are at a debate.
Definitely. I am very interested in seeing this video, but with only one side of the story, it isn't very useful to comment on it. Lets hope it is released so we can be objective about it.
If it's released, we'll all lose interest in the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
We can spend billions of dollars for useless weapons, but can't bother to spend the necessary money to keep our infrastructure from crumbling. What a fine use of our tax dollars!
Presumably that's because the defense contractors that make these toys are traded on Wall Street, but most of the companies that fix rusty bridges and patch up potholes aren't.
Now we can kill people faster than ever!
Once we get it working FTL, we can kill them yesterday!
The price tag is that the rest of the world thinks you're an asshole, so you get people adding their body fluids to your food when you dine abroad.
Would that be precious bodily foods, or just ordinary bodily fluids?
(Hmmm... the reference seems especially poignant in the context of this article.)
Interesting, but I don't think this would happen, as neutrinos don't have charge. The Cherenkov radiation is an electromagnetic effect, so it does not work on neutrinos.
The article made the analogy, but I don't think they were saying it was the exact same mechanism. Something about electrons moving faster than light in water allowing them to shed energy by emitting light; the difference in speeds being the essential ingredient... (IANAPhysicist, obviously).
Unfortunately I can't even remember where I read it. Thought it was the Badass Tronomer's site, but I don't see it there.
I read somewhere just yesterday that a paper is out showing that FTL neutrinos would radiate away their energy Chernikov style, so if they really were FTL the Italian team wouldn't have measured the full flux in their experiments.
Supposedly this put the nail in the coffin for the FTL explanation; the OPERA group is really going out on a limb now.
The irony of taking out a newspaper ad to protect the Web is certainly lost on no one.
It's lost on me, you insensitive clod.
So now we know what the Nazca lines were for.
Damn straight, just imagine, everyone being equal, everyone having the same say ... that could lead to democracy if you're not careful!
You know how democracy is supposed to work: one dollar, one vote.
Apparently you didnt follow any of the coverage of the Tea Party.
When were TP protests ever met with phananxes of police in riot gear?
Easy, if that small group is a small group of bankers, they can very easily threaten the economy of a whole country. Heck, they can even threaten the economy of the whole world.
The actual reason city officials are hostile to them hasn't got anything to do with a threat to the economy. It's because they threaten to build political support for reducing the privileges of the privileged classes. We can't allow *that*.
Indeed that is what became of classified material I have dealt with. Shredded using a military cross-cut shedder (output pieces smaller than 1x10mm), mixed thoroughly, and then incinerated using a purpose built belt-fed, gas fired machine.
I bought a cheap home shredder about a year ago, and it crosscuts. Makes reassembly unimaginably more difficult. (I think mine produces more like 2mm wide, but still.)
And if you don't have an incinerator, just pour the crosscut confetti into a recycle bin where all your other documents go. If you think reassembling one document would be difficult, consider starting from a bucket where the scraps of dozens or hundreds of documents are mixed indiscriminately.
They should just call it GQ, "Geek Quotient".
As far as the FCC regulations go, there is some question as to whether Congress has ever granted the FCC the power to impose such regulations.
Hasn't that question already been weighed in court?
I'm all in favour of net neutrality, but I'm sorry, no private company could possibly screw up things as bad as when the government gets involved and starts "regulating".
So, did California get Enron'd before you were born?
Or are you just jerking your knee to the tune of a political mantra?
Some conservatives are in favor of privatizing prisons, traffic stops, and even the kicking in of doors.
There's that myth of American politics again.
These aren't "conservative" issues, they're issues for the party that pretends to be conservative (to lure people into voting against their own self interests) but is in fact simply looking out for the rich. The Republican "base" is billionaires.
Anything that puts public money in their pockets is "conservative" policy under the American myth, and anything that taxes them for the good of the Republic is "liberal" policy under that same myth.
And BTW... where were the phalanxes of baton-wielding policemen during the Tea Party protests? Oh, wait, those people weren't any threat to the unlimited ability of the rich to get richer, so mayors didn't see any need to find excuses to evict them or beat them up.
I'll bet this one didn't "scurry about". Probably the dinosaurs scurried away whenever it came out of its den looking hungry.
I am the High Priest of tinkiwinkiwankerism. Everyone who gives me $300 and kisses my unwashed behind will be rewarded with eternal bliss; everyone else will suffer eternal punishment.
What does Pascal's "logic" tell you you should do?
The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes religion is a yes-no question. His way or the highway.
But what if there is a god, not the one he believes in, who tolerates atheism but punishes people for worshiping the competition?
Or any of a million other permutations of unknowable "reality" that you could conjecture?
Pascal's Wager is a glaringly gratuitous mechanism for self-justification. Childish, even. It only works for people who have already made up their minds.
Haught believes science and religion are "compatible", and Coyne disagrees.
Religion is compatible with *anything*, so long as it doesn't make any falsifiable claims.
Should have been a short debate.
So what's to argue about? Haught claims that "materialism" dwells in the heart of science educators, which he views as a religion. So I guess this is an argument about one man's notions that we worship "materialism," and that religion should be given equal time, even though he doesn't dispute the findings of modern science. So the argument isn't about the structure of the universe or the findings of modern science, but giving equal time to "religion" because science is a worship of "materialism"? Pretty thin gruel for a debate, since "materialism" exists as a religion only in the mind of Haught. Funny, the science magazines I read have no mention of this "materialism" he speaks of.
This is common fare from creationists. They lose before the argument starts if they agree to argue on the basis of evidence. So many of them try to play it as "my theology is as legitimate as your Materialist philosophy".
I know a former protestant minister, very religious, who accepts the findings of geology about the age of the Earth.
As I understand it, the basics were all *discovered* by religious types.
I know a non-religious person who believes in alien visitations. This is subjective, but I find no correlation between rational thinking and personal belief systems. It seems to be based on the individual, not the religion.
Darn straight.
Same with values & morals, IMO.
The whole notion of debates baffles me. Why are we interested in who can pin the other to the mat in a short debate, when there are huge piles of data and analysis available to anyone who is actually interested in the subject.
Debates are PR stunts. Entertainment. You're more likely to learn something on Slashdot than you are at a debate.
Definitely. I am very interested in seeing this video, but with only one side of the story, it isn't very useful to comment on it. Lets hope it is released so we can be objective about it.
If it's released, we'll all lose interest in the topic.
I think that's jumping to conclusions. People would still have their own sins to condemn them.
After all, no one's perfect.
Yes, but how many of us deserve eternal torture?
When true scientists are asked about God the answer tends to be: I don't know, there is no evidence one way or the other.
Yes, that's what they say about Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too.
And also Zeus, Thor, Marduk, Angra Mainyu, Illuvatar, Eru, and all that lot.
I'm sure you say exactly the same thing.
"True" scientists - are they like true Scotsmen?
Yes, they wear dresses and listen to music that grates on the ears.