Most (North American) traffic laws allow for a single vehicle to enter the intersection in order to start a turn.
The traffic laws around here, and I presume elsewhere are also very clear that when traffic is backed up so that you cannot clear the intersection you cannot enter.
When you combine those you get what is actually legal in the situation: One person may enter the intersection, and when safe clear it. Everyone else must wait at the line until the person in front of them is clear to proceed.
One driver may legally enter an intersection in order to make a turn; once a driver has entered the intersection traffic is backed up to the intersection and any further intrusions into the intersection are illegal.
The second, third and fourth car that enter to turn left are all breaking the law; they're also the ones that cause problems.
One driver is legally allowed to enter an intersection in order to turn despite oncoming traffic.
Once that one person has entered the intersection, traffic is backed up to the intersection and the law is very very clear that further intrusions into the intersection are illegal.
Before you go calling people a moron perhaps you should stop being one yourself.
I know here in Canada and in all the places I've been in the US yellows are plenty long.
The issue is assholes entering the intersection to turn left when it isn't clear, people refusing to stop when the light does turn yellow, etc.
I'd actually want to see a very clear causal link between longer yellows and safety increases, because my gut tells me longer yellows would make people ignore them even more.
I mean, if you really want to rock some low light pollution just send it out of the galaxy.
Of course it'll take a few thousand years to get the data back from each picture, but what's a thousand years when you're looking at the beginning of the universe right?
Of course that's what's happening in Ubuntu, it doesn't change the fact that it want's to update all. the. fucking. time. and doesn't make and serious effort (at least by default) to let the user know that.
If Microsoft started pulling that shit you'd end up with even more horribly out of date windows boxes, not less.
In many cases the reason they're printing them in the first place is because they *can't* be machined the way they want, so machining after the fact isn't an option.
However you're right about the tolerance and smoothness. The part I linked and others like it don't need to be perfect around the edges (figuratively and literally) whereas more than likely almost everything in the ISS does.
They're starting to use 3d printing in aircraft parts because they can print more complex, lighter and stronger shapes with the printers. This is being done with metal.
However, I've absolutely no doubt that the machines that are doing it are not the sort of thing that you'll be able to put on the ISS.
The moon, on the other hand, that's something worth considering.
But this makes it sound like modular is being used a bit like a car is "modular" before it gets to the assembly line.
What we really need is small plants in more places using gen-4 technology to keep them running safe. The fact that we still ship power across the damn country is shameful. I'm frankly less concerned about how the power is generated than where.
Yes and I was overly argumentative with you because the CERN stuff was very ambiguous in places about which they were talking (you really weren't, so you have my apologies on that front).
I've looked at it again, and I think the issue is in their wording. They flip back and forth between saying "Standard Model Higgs Boson" and just Higgs Boson.
Those are very different things, and if you assume that they mean SM everywhere they don't say it then what they say is valid.
They will not ever be able to disprove the Higgs Boson with the LHC, disproving the standard model (higgs boson) isn't an issue.
I replied in more detail to the poster above you, but it boils down to this:
Disproving the standard model is not disproving the higgs boson (so to speak).
The photon is a member of the standard model too, but it doesn't mean that if they disprove the standard model photons cease to exist.
Once they have covered all theoretical ranges of the higgs boson including the ones that allow for breakage of the standard model, then they will have disproven the HB
It's certainly possible that I've missed a development over the years... However, the predictions you speak of rely on two (that I'll cover) very important things:
The standard model being correct There being no other "fudge" particles discovered along with the Higgs that rectify the breaks
Assuming that the LHC shows no higgs below 200GeV (I think it's now excluded above 150) and can also show no other "fudge" particles across all possible ranges for them to exist; they have disproven the standard model.
That doesn't really mean they've disproved the higgs boson any more than they've disproved the photon.
If your hypothesis isn't matched by observations, you were wrong; if your hypothesis is matched by observations you weren't wrong, but that doesn't mean you were specifically right either.
Science deals in negation, not affirmation. We believe things exist because we have shown other explanations to be incorrect, not because we have proof that our current ones are correct.
Science proper only deals with the latter; a new species cannot actually be "proved" to be anything unless you have a full and precise description of it down to the subatomic makeup.
You can however show that a new specimen does not belong to a current classification, and thus requires a new one. That's just how science works.
No that's the point; they can't check all the ranges.
The LHC is incapable of operating at the upper energies of the predicted spectrum of the higgs boson. It simply cannot check all of the places it might be hiding (this was known before construction even started)
Unless things have changed since yesterday, the LHC cannot disprove the HB.
It can show that it isn't within certain energy ranges, but it does not have the capability of emphatically disproving it's existence over the entire predicted spectrum.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, I really didn't think that what I wrote was that hard to understand but so many seem to have been unable.
Most (North American) traffic laws allow for a single vehicle to enter the intersection in order to start a turn.
The traffic laws around here, and I presume elsewhere are also very clear that when traffic is backed up so that you cannot clear the intersection you cannot enter.
When you combine those you get what is actually legal in the situation: One person may enter the intersection, and when safe clear it. Everyone else must wait at the line until the person in front of them is clear to proceed.
As I've said to others:
One driver may legally enter an intersection in order to make a turn; once a driver has entered the intersection traffic is backed up to the intersection and any further intrusions into the intersection are illegal.
The second, third and fourth car that enter to turn left are all breaking the law; they're also the ones that cause problems.
One driver is legally allowed to enter an intersection in order to turn despite oncoming traffic.
Once that one person has entered the intersection, traffic is backed up to the intersection and the law is very very clear that further intrusions into the intersection are illegal.
Before you go calling people a moron perhaps you should stop being one yourself.
You don't know what causal means do you?
You should never be so close to the car in front of you that this happens. If you are, you absolutely are at fault.
I know here in Canada and in all the places I've been in the US yellows are plenty long.
The issue is assholes entering the intersection to turn left when it isn't clear, people refusing to stop when the light does turn yellow, etc.
I'd actually want to see a very clear causal link between longer yellows and safety increases, because my gut tells me longer yellows would make people ignore them even more.
I mean, if you really want to rock some low light pollution just send it out of the galaxy.
Of course it'll take a few thousand years to get the data back from each picture, but what's a thousand years when you're looking at the beginning of the universe right?
You say this as though I don't know that.
Of course that's what's happening in Ubuntu, it doesn't change the fact that it want's to update all. the. fucking. time. and doesn't make and serious effort (at least by default) to let the user know that.
If Microsoft started pulling that shit you'd end up with even more horribly out of date windows boxes, not less.
No actually nightly patch cycles is the worst possible way to go for actual end user security.
My windows machine is completely up to date, because the one time every week or two it asks me I let it install and reboot.
Same story for my OS X boxes, all up to date.
My several different ubuntu boxes aren't up to date, not a damn one of them because five minutes after I update it wants to do it again. Fuck that.
Well, that's true and false at the same time...
In many cases the reason they're printing them in the first place is because they *can't* be machined the way they want, so machining after the fact isn't an option.
This is an example, not actually being used in production as far as I know; but the idea is that it will be.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38352/?mod=MagOur
However you're right about the tolerance and smoothness. The part I linked and others like it don't need to be perfect around the edges (figuratively and literally) whereas more than likely almost everything in the ISS does.
They're starting to use 3d printing in aircraft parts because they can print more complex, lighter and stronger shapes with the printers. This is being done with metal.
However, I've absolutely no doubt that the machines that are doing it are not the sort of thing that you'll be able to put on the ISS.
The moon, on the other hand, that's something worth considering.
But this makes it sound like modular is being used a bit like a car is "modular" before it gets to the assembly line.
What we really need is small plants in more places using gen-4 technology to keep them running safe. The fact that we still ship power across the damn country is shameful. I'm frankly less concerned about how the power is generated than where.
Yes and I was overly argumentative with you because the CERN stuff was very ambiguous in places about which they were talking (you really weren't, so you have my apologies on that front).
I've looked at it again, and I think the issue is in their wording. They flip back and forth between saying "Standard Model Higgs Boson" and just Higgs Boson.
Those are very different things, and if you assume that they mean SM everywhere they don't say it then what they say is valid.
They will not ever be able to disprove the Higgs Boson with the LHC, disproving the standard model (higgs boson) isn't an issue.
Try replying to what is actually written next time.
Nobody will *ever* be able to prove the existence of the higgs boson. LHC cannot *disprove* the existence of the higgs boson.
Those statements do not contradict each other, and I only made one of them.
Thanks for playing though
I replied in more detail to the poster above you, but it boils down to this:
Disproving the standard model is not disproving the higgs boson (so to speak).
The photon is a member of the standard model too, but it doesn't mean that if they disprove the standard model photons cease to exist.
Once they have covered all theoretical ranges of the higgs boson including the ones that allow for breakage of the standard model, then they will have disproven the HB
It's certainly possible that I've missed a development over the years... However, the predictions you speak of rely on two (that I'll cover) very important things:
The standard model being correct
There being no other "fudge" particles discovered along with the Higgs that rectify the breaks
Assuming that the LHC shows no higgs below 200GeV (I think it's now excluded above 150) and can also show no other "fudge" particles across all possible ranges for them to exist; they have disproven the standard model.
That doesn't really mean they've disproved the higgs boson any more than they've disproved the photon.
Sorry you too are wrong:
Science works in a very specific way:
Form hypothesis, compare against observations.
If your hypothesis isn't matched by observations, you were wrong; if your hypothesis is matched by observations you weren't wrong, but that doesn't mean you were specifically right either.
Science deals in negation, not affirmation. We believe things exist because we have shown other explanations to be incorrect, not because we have proof that our current ones are correct.
Science proper only deals with the latter; a new species cannot actually be "proved" to be anything unless you have a full and precise description of it down to the subatomic makeup.
You can however show that a new specimen does not belong to a current classification, and thus requires a new one. That's just how science works.
Science is very clear about it's own mission:
You form a hypothesis, and either demonstrate that it is consistent with observations or inconsistent.
If it is inconsistent, you were wrong. If it was consistent it doesn't mean you were right.
Science allows for negation, it does not ever allow for emphatic affirmation.
Wow... please go back to school.
Science dictates the exact opposite of what you just said, and I don't think you were trolling...
I did, and it specifically mentions a confirmation of existence or non-existence in 2012.
If they meant non-existence within a specific energy band, fine but that isn't what they said in the release.
No that's the point; they can't check all the ranges.
The LHC is incapable of operating at the upper energies of the predicted spectrum of the higgs boson. It simply cannot check all of the places it might be hiding (this was known before construction even started)
Unless things have changed since yesterday, the LHC cannot disprove the HB.
It can show that it isn't within certain energy ranges, but it does not have the capability of emphatically disproving it's existence over the entire predicted spectrum.