Shouldn't that be "Technically, no"? In what "technical" sense is the answer yes?
You're forgetting that all movement is relative. If you and me and one light-year apart, and a star explodes right between us, we'll both see it in about six months -- because the "light waves" are traveling, relative to us, at the speed of light. However, since the distance between two photons went to a full light-year in only 1/2 a light year, the relative speed of either photon from the other was 2c.
This is only technical, because light isn't really a wave or a particle -- it's a ripple in the fabric of spacetime, that isn't bound up in one of the knots we call matter.
You do not pick them up in a vw bus put them up in a motel 6, and then take them to McDonalds for dinner.
You would if you either:
Want to show the millionare just how far you can stretch his 2m
Want him to invest in your McDonald's / Motel 6 / VW Bus business
By the when serving a cuisine typw, it is traditional to use the country's name for the item.
Actually, custom calls for using the current culture's name for it. Which is why mexican restaurants describe their meals using either english words (which include "burrito", btw) or with relatively verbose definitions.
FWIW, "snails" are called "escargo" because "escargo" is the English name of any dish that contains cooked snails as its primary ingredient. It's never called "snails" because, well, we never call "pork" "pig" or "beef" "cow" -- at least, not without being as crude as someone who goes to a fancy restaurant and orders a plate of "snails."
Would not two photons/beams of light travelling in opposite directions be moving faster than the speed of light *relative* to one another?
Technically, yes. But it doesn't matter, because nothing travels between those two photons -- they're unrelated.
If you were on a ship traveling at 0.5c and flashed a bright light at me from 1 light-hour away, that light would still get to me in one hour--even though you might think that it'd get to me in more time. The light would, however, be "stretched" -- red-shifted -- so as to cover all of the bits of reality you and me.
If you were heading towards me at the same speed, and flashed a light at the same distance, it'd get to me at the same time -- but it would be shifted in the other direction, so as to cover all of reality between you and me.
Remember: the speed of light is instantaneous. What c measures is the speed of information-transmission through the fabric of reality -- or, more easily, c is the speed of an instant.
Democrats are still a statistical voting majority; they've just been shackled by the twin spectors of Republican Gerrymanding (which oughta be an imeachable offense...) and a slate of mostly unimpressive candidates.
Since we're on the internet, the haven of good ideas, I'll coin the "West Wing" effect. Democrats got all wrapped up and spent their excitement on the ideal Democrats they saw on TV, and they didn't do the leg work to counter Turd Blossom.
the truth is that newtons laws are just approximations of reality that happen to give good enough results in most situations.
The truth is that everything in human perception is just an appoximation that gives us good enough results in most situations. Not just our formally described scientific notations, but realy basic things -- like the pixels you're reading now, the shape of the monitor that your eyes and brain put together, and the buzz of whatever sound is in the room now.
(sorry, but people who piss on Newton are a pet peeve of mine. He wasn't wrong, he just didn't have any way to account for the forces that derive from the fabric of reality.)
1. The first time you lose all of your work because that metadata freaks out, or some other quirk destroys the document you will learn to balance Old Standard vs No Standard.
Happend quite a while back. Which is why I routinely "accept all" or "reject all."
2. By the time you get done explaining to everyone who needs to work on the document how to correctly manage the various revision check features, I have told everyone on the team just strikethrough removals and bold additions and have completed most of the document.
"Open the "Track Changes" Toolbar, and use "Accept" or "Reject" when approving edits."
And if you're authoring the document and sending it out for comments and additions, you don't even have to do that. "It'll track your changes for you; just send it back to me" is possibly the easiest way to do this.
Now, then, it WOULD be nice to have an OpenDoc or XML-native word processor that doesn't try and be a page-layout program. A LaTeX program that had autocorrect, a live-use dictionary, OOo's "word complete", and some form of revision tracking would probably be ideal.
Both "revision marks" and "master documents" are great ideas, but MS has not fulfilled their implementation. Both need to be made less brittle and more robust, and both need better metamanagement tools (governing who can contribute, in what ways, etc) and decent training in appropriate usage.
Oddly enough, this is one of the "Big Changes" from Office 2003. It requires either Outlook or a Sharepoint server, but you can pretty effectively limit who can edit a document, and keep track of their changes. And if you can't do that, you could always slap a password on the document and deny any changes aside from commenting.
Please Please Please let me use the document editing methods I want rather than relying on MS Office features.
I'm not your boss. I'm just a guy who thinks that using a shoe to pound down a nail when you've got a perfectly good hamer is stupid. If you want to be ineffecient and waste time doing something the computer can do faster and more effectively, go right ahead.
I'm sure there's a huge market for folk who perform the same task as a computer, but slower and with more errors.
(And as I said before, EVERY word processor today has that same feature. It's even one of the things that OOo.org and WordPerfect are able to support with MS Office.)
Please, please, PLEASE don't try and tell your co-workers to use an old typographic standard when every word processor they use has a feature to do that built right in.
Word's "Track Changes" feature is one of the few things that make it such a useful writing tool. Every version of MS Word since Office 95 has it, and they all allow you to customize what is seen and how it's seen. Don't want the balloons in XP-on? Do what I do and turn them off. Want to only see the changes from Director Bob, or ignore all changes from "Steve the Know it All"? You can do that, rather easily.
(For the curious, a few other things that make Word so useful are its Styles system -- when "Auto Create Styles" is turned off -- and the built-in Dictionary and Thesaurus as of the latest version.))
1: Speed. From walking down the street with everything put away, one can get out a PDA and look up (whatever) faster than stopping, opening the laptop, probably brining it out of hybernation, and launching the application you need.
2: Utility. A modern PDA doubles as either an iPod, a camera, a GPS, or all of the three.
3: Safety. The most expensive PDA on the market is about $400. A geek's laptop is probably anywhere from twice to five times that expensive, and a fair bit harder to fix if broken, to boot. (A replacement PDA screen runs about $50, and Palm at least sells a "one-screen" replacement plan.)
Actually, humility is important to honesty. As I'm sure you've heard, "there's always a bigger fish", "you can't tell a book by its cover", et cetera. If you are willing to re-evaluate anyhing you've done, you'll be that much closer to the truth -- and you'll also have the point of humility.
Of course, being a high school student, I doubt you'd listen to advice from anyone you don't already see as an expert with value to you.
(Oh, and it's not a fracking apostrophe. The right word is "whose", and I would hope that someone who wants to be a computer programmer would realize the importance of exactly correct syntax -- especially if you're going to be doing any user interface design.)
1: Were blessed with sufficient free time to teach you what they knew. (yay!)
2: Apparantly failed to teach you humility.
3: Totally failed on teaching you the difference between the who-is contraction and the who-posessive. (He're a hint: it's the exact same rule as the it-is / it-posessive.);)
Please, go learn some basics about I.P. law in America.
ALL rights that someone has to a creative work that is not a mere identifier and not a mechanically novel creation are copyrights. A musician's only rights to their music are copyrights.
The start of the confusion, which is easy to make, is that a typical mass-media song has at least three distinct inter-related works, all with potentially different copyrights. First you've got the copyright on the song itself -- the sheet music, if you will --, then the copyright on the specific performance of that song the band did in a studio, and then you've got the copyright on the balanced and produced master of said performanc. And we're ignoring the potential for anything other than an original song on the air -- a compilation of songs on an album can have a distinct copyright, as can the album's cover art and ascetic layout, and of course there's the chance that a song contains within itself part of someone else's copyright enirely.
And, of course, once all of those copyrights are done, the various copyright holders have a network of contractual agreements on what rights are exchanged for what (i.e., the songwriter only lets the band play a song for a fee, the band only lets the company make an album for royalties and sometimes control et cetera), and these contracts often have limitations and standards that define what they can and can't do -- such as "sell this work to someone else" or just abou any other obscure thing under the sun.
Assuming the author is correct is NOT what science is about. Here's some EVIDENCE for you, since you seem to be so firm in your convictions that radiogenic damage can't occur.
All the references in the world can't make a knee-jerk reaction into a cognizant argument, "Tavor."
The premise of the article seems to be -- I don't even have to waste enough time to read it -- that there is wildlife in the radioactive Chernobyl landscape that, aside from the radiation, show no harmful mutations. It's certainly not a denial of the deadliness of radiation to a massive percentage of the population--it's a intriging suggestion that life can adapt.
This is natural selection at work, and it should been seen as exactly that and nothing more. A massive introduction of radiation is an environmental change--there shouldn't be any surprise that, after a few generations, life around the radiation stops dying off so easily.
Sure they can reproduce but I wouldn't exactly be jumping with glee over this "recovery". The damage merely has yet to express itself.
So what you're saying is, regardless of the lack of evidence for harmful mutation that should be evident, there MUST be harm becase you KNOW that radiation causes it?
So it's really going to suck that we have to buy the corn from Mongolia.
No, not really. Remember: there's a LOT of ariable land in this country. As the price of oil keeps going up, we're getting closer and closer to the point where an acre of corn-for-fuel looks like a better and better deal.
In less than 200 years, expect the United States to be back as a net exporter of "oil", due both to the loss of fossil fuels and our high tech return to our agrarian roots.
Going by that definition, videogames are MORE APTLY called art than a photograph, painting, sculpture, or anything else considered art by the mainstream.
There really should be a latin term for "arguing by looking through the dictionary for a definition that supports your side."
Generally speaking, we can divide any piece of entertainment into one of three groups: Art, Game, and Spectacle. Most of what we do is Game, and most of what we "don't do" (because we watch or listen or read or whatever) is Spectacle. Historically, only a relatively small area of Spectacle could be considered Art--something that goes beyond merely entertaining us, to actually touching on something fundamental in the common nature of the artist and the audience.
Video Games are interesting because, from time to time, they jump from being Game to being Art. Since at least the NES days Video Games have included Spectacle (cut-scenes and ending sequences), and occasionally this Spectacle jumps to the level of Art. Now, anyone could reason that out with a high school understanding of statistics, but the reason why video games are interesting isn't that their adjacent Spectacle becomes Art--it's because the game itself borders on and occasionally crosses over into Art.
This is what Ebert apparantly doesn't get. Sometimes, Video Games are art even without Spectacle. Myst is a good example of this--it's certainly game with only minor spectacle, but the game itself is executed in a way gripping enough to make us think.
If you're inclined to argue with Ebert's ilk about this, I would advice putting down the dictionary and going [back] to a College English Department. The argument for Video Games as art is easy enough to make, especailly if you can address the "game pieces as art" complaint and make a solid case for some other forms of "interactive art."
Clinton was actually Impeached, by a Congress that wanted any charge possible to hang him on. If he HAD gone behind the FISA Court's back, then it's as close to certain as we can get that it'd have come out.
Remember: even Bush's FISA court bypass included notification to the "Gang of Eight", which includes (IIRC) the eight folk outside the White House who might become President.
IMNSHO, a lot of W-haters are exersizing selective amnesia regarding this case.
Except that NO ONE has alleged that Clinton went around doing these things without regard to either the FISA court, or that he lied about how often he would be doing this sneaky thing.
And if you think it all started with Clinton, then I've got to tell you about this bridge near his office that he wants me to sell you. It's a historic, early 19th century suspension bridge, no less.;)
Psst... think past 1776 to what they did when they actually won.
The American Revolution was a war for a better government, not anarchy. And once that war was won, well, every red-blooded dissident became a red-blooded supporter of the government.
They had a name for folks like yourself in mid-20th-century Europe. I believe it was: collaborator...
They also had a name for the very same folk in late 18th century America. The word was patriot.
Authority is not always bad. it is always POTENTIALLY bad, but if you can't see the difference then you're probably better off in a totalitarian nanny state.
I await the day when we get enough strict constructionists on the Supreme Court to reverse their previous bad decisions, sweeping away McCain Fiengold and most other 'Campaign Finance Laws' that aren't limited to mandatory disclosure requirements.
Check out the Constitution before you call for strict constructionists.
Article 1, Section 4: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Without SCOTUS jumping from what's written to "money is speech", there isn't a prayer at all to keep Congress from simply banning campaign contributions outright. But, even if we do take money-as-speech to be vital to the First Amendment, that still doesn't mean that it cannot be legislatively limited to ensure a more-equal voice to all citizens --> similar to how it's perfectly acceptable for us to expect religions to obey our criminal laws, or for you to not exercise your right to freely be terribly loud at 4 a.m.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't that be "Technically, no"? In what "technical" sense is the answer yes?
You're forgetting that all movement is relative. If you and me and one light-year apart, and a star explodes right between us, we'll both see it in about six months -- because the "light waves" are traveling, relative to us, at the speed of light. However, since the distance between two photons went to a full light-year in only 1/2 a light year, the relative speed of either photon from the other was 2c.
This is only technical, because light isn't really a wave or a particle -- it's a ripple in the fabric of spacetime, that isn't bound up in one of the knots we call matter.
You would if you either:
By the when serving a cuisine typw, it is traditional to use the country's name for the item.
Actually, custom calls for using the current culture's name for it. Which is why mexican restaurants describe their meals using either english words (which include "burrito", btw) or with relatively verbose definitions.
FWIW, "snails" are called "escargo" because "escargo" is the English name of any dish that contains cooked snails as its primary ingredient. It's never called "snails" because, well, we never call "pork" "pig" or "beef" "cow" -- at least, not without being as crude as someone who goes to a fancy restaurant and orders a plate of "snails."
Would not two photons/beams of light travelling in opposite directions be moving faster than the speed of light *relative* to one another?
Technically, yes. But it doesn't matter, because nothing travels between those two photons -- they're unrelated.
If you were on a ship traveling at 0.5c and flashed a bright light at me from 1 light-hour away, that light would still get to me in one hour--even though you might think that it'd get to me in more time. The light would, however, be "stretched" -- red-shifted -- so as to cover all of the bits of reality you and me.
If you were heading towards me at the same speed, and flashed a light at the same distance, it'd get to me at the same time -- but it would be shifted in the other direction, so as to cover all of reality between you and me.
Remember: the speed of light is instantaneous. What c measures is the speed of information-transmission through the fabric of reality -- or, more easily, c is the speed of an instant.
Nope.
Democrats are still a statistical voting majority; they've just been shackled by the twin spectors of Republican Gerrymanding (which oughta be an imeachable offense...) and a slate of mostly unimpressive candidates.
Since we're on the internet, the haven of good ideas, I'll coin the "West Wing" effect. Democrats got all wrapped up and spent their excitement on the ideal Democrats they saw on TV, and they didn't do the leg work to counter Turd Blossom.
the truth is that newtons laws are just approximations of reality that happen to give good enough results in most situations.
The truth is that everything in human perception is just an appoximation that gives us good enough results in most situations. Not just our formally described scientific notations, but realy basic things -- like the pixels you're reading now, the shape of the monitor that your eyes and brain put together, and the buzz of whatever sound is in the room now.
(sorry, but people who piss on Newton are a pet peeve of mine. He wasn't wrong, he just didn't have any way to account for the forces that derive from the fabric of reality.)
1. The first time you lose all of your work because that metadata freaks out, or some other quirk destroys the document you will learn to balance Old Standard vs No Standard.
Happend quite a while back. Which is why I routinely "accept all" or "reject all."
2. By the time you get done explaining to everyone who needs to work on the document how to correctly manage the various revision check features, I have told everyone on the team just strikethrough removals and bold additions and have completed most of the document.
"Open the "Track Changes" Toolbar, and use "Accept" or "Reject" when approving edits."
And if you're authoring the document and sending it out for comments and additions, you don't even have to do that. "It'll track your changes for you; just send it back to me" is possibly the easiest way to do this.
Now, then, it WOULD be nice to have an OpenDoc or XML-native word processor that doesn't try and be a page-layout program. A LaTeX program that had autocorrect, a live-use dictionary, OOo's "word complete", and some form of revision tracking would probably be ideal.
Both "revision marks" and "master documents" are great ideas, but MS has not fulfilled their implementation. Both need to be made less brittle and more robust, and both need better metamanagement tools (governing who can contribute, in what ways, etc) and decent training in appropriate usage.
Oddly enough, this is one of the "Big Changes" from Office 2003. It requires either Outlook or a Sharepoint server, but you can pretty effectively limit who can edit a document, and keep track of their changes. And if you can't do that, you could always slap a password on the document and deny any changes aside from commenting.
Please Please Please let me use the document editing methods I want rather than relying on MS Office features.
I'm not your boss. I'm just a guy who thinks that using a shoe to pound down a nail when you've got a perfectly good hamer is stupid. If you want to be ineffecient and waste time doing something the computer can do faster and more effectively, go right ahead.
I'm sure there's a huge market for folk who perform the same task as a computer, but slower and with more errors.
(And as I said before, EVERY word processor today has that same feature. It's even one of the things that OOo.org and WordPerfect are able to support with MS Office.)
Please, please, PLEASE don't try and tell your co-workers to use an old typographic standard when every word processor they use has a feature to do that built right in.
Word's "Track Changes" feature is one of the few things that make it such a useful writing tool. Every version of MS Word since Office 95 has it, and they all allow you to customize what is seen and how it's seen. Don't want the balloons in XP-on? Do what I do and turn them off. Want to only see the changes from Director Bob, or ignore all changes from "Steve the Know it All"? You can do that, rather easily.
(For the curious, a few other things that make Word so useful are its Styles system -- when "Auto Create Styles" is turned off -- and the built-in Dictionary and Thesaurus as of the latest version.))
1: Speed. From walking down the street with everything put away, one can get out a PDA and look up (whatever) faster than stopping, opening the laptop, probably brining it out of hybernation, and launching the application you need.
2: Utility. A modern PDA doubles as either an iPod, a camera, a GPS, or all of the three.
3: Safety. The most expensive PDA on the market is about $400. A geek's laptop is probably anywhere from twice to five times that expensive, and a fair bit harder to fix if broken, to boot. (A replacement PDA screen runs about $50, and Palm at least sells a "one-screen" replacement plan.)
Actually, humility is important to honesty. As I'm sure you've heard, "there's always a bigger fish", "you can't tell a book by its cover", et cetera. If you are willing to re-evaluate anyhing you've done, you'll be that much closer to the truth -- and you'll also have the point of humility.
Of course, being a high school student, I doubt you'd listen to advice from anyone you don't already see as an expert with value to you.
(Oh, and it's not a fracking apostrophe. The right word is "whose", and I would hope that someone who wants to be a computer programmer would realize the importance of exactly correct syntax -- especially if you're going to be doing any user interface design.)
I was one of those kids who's parents...
;)
1: Were blessed with sufficient free time to teach you what they knew. (yay!)
2: Apparantly failed to teach you humility.
3: Totally failed on teaching you the difference between the who-is contraction and the who-posessive. (He're a hint: it's the exact same rule as the it-is / it-posessive.)
Please, go learn some basics about I.P. law in America.
ALL rights that someone has to a creative work that is not a mere identifier and not a mechanically novel creation are copyrights. A musician's only rights to their music are copyrights.
The start of the confusion, which is easy to make, is that a typical mass-media song has at least three distinct inter-related works, all with potentially different copyrights. First you've got the copyright on the song itself -- the sheet music, if you will --, then the copyright on the specific performance of that song the band did in a studio, and then you've got the copyright on the balanced and produced master of said performanc. And we're ignoring the potential for anything other than an original song on the air -- a compilation of songs on an album can have a distinct copyright, as can the album's cover art and ascetic layout, and of course there's the chance that a song contains within itself part of someone else's copyright enirely.
And, of course, once all of those copyrights are done, the various copyright holders have a network of contractual agreements on what rights are exchanged for what (i.e., the songwriter only lets the band play a song for a fee, the band only lets the company make an album for royalties and sometimes control et cetera), and these contracts often have limitations and standards that define what they can and can't do -- such as "sell this work to someone else" or just abou any other obscure thing under the sun.
None of the above, actually. Sex is a productive activity, akin to eating or breathing.
But, if you really must, Sex is a game. Somewhere between football and poker, but still a game.
why would people want WATCHES with computer sync??
Three reasons.
1: To sync the time. Modern PCs automatically correct their clocks with various atomic-clock based schemes.
2: To record the data from the heartrate / GPS / whatever system on the watch.
3: To set the alarms on the watch.
Assuming the author is correct is NOT what science is about. Here's some EVIDENCE for you, since you seem to be so firm in your convictions that radiogenic damage can't occur.
All the references in the world can't make a knee-jerk reaction into a cognizant argument, "Tavor."
The premise of the article seems to be -- I don't even have to waste enough time to read it -- that there is wildlife in the radioactive Chernobyl landscape that, aside from the radiation, show no harmful mutations. It's certainly not a denial of the deadliness of radiation to a massive percentage of the population--it's a intriging suggestion that life can adapt.
This is natural selection at work, and it should been seen as exactly that and nothing more. A massive introduction of radiation is an environmental change--there shouldn't be any surprise that, after a few generations, life around the radiation stops dying off so easily.
Sure they can reproduce but I wouldn't exactly be jumping with glee over this "recovery". The damage merely has yet to express itself.
So what you're saying is, regardless of the lack of evidence for harmful mutation that should be evident, there MUST be harm becase you KNOW that radiation causes it?
Way to be scientific about this.
So it's really going to suck that we have to buy the corn from Mongolia.
No, not really. Remember: there's a LOT of ariable land in this country. As the price of oil keeps going up, we're getting closer and closer to the point where an acre of corn-for-fuel looks like a better and better deal.
In less than 200 years, expect the United States to be back as a net exporter of "oil", due both to the loss of fossil fuels and our high tech return to our agrarian roots.
Going by that definition, videogames are MORE APTLY called art than a photograph, painting, sculpture, or anything else considered art by the mainstream.
There really should be a latin term for "arguing by looking through the dictionary for a definition that supports your side."
Generally speaking, we can divide any piece of entertainment into one of three groups: Art, Game, and Spectacle. Most of what we do is Game, and most of what we "don't do" (because we watch or listen or read or whatever) is Spectacle. Historically, only a relatively small area of Spectacle could be considered Art--something that goes beyond merely entertaining us, to actually touching on something fundamental in the common nature of the artist and the audience.
Video Games are interesting because, from time to time, they jump from being Game to being Art. Since at least the NES days Video Games have included Spectacle (cut-scenes and ending sequences), and occasionally this Spectacle jumps to the level of Art. Now, anyone could reason that out with a high school understanding of statistics, but the reason why video games are interesting isn't that their adjacent Spectacle becomes Art--it's because the game itself borders on and occasionally crosses over into Art.
This is what Ebert apparantly doesn't get. Sometimes, Video Games are art even without Spectacle. Myst is a good example of this--it's certainly game with only minor spectacle, but the game itself is executed in a way gripping enough to make us think.
If you're inclined to argue with Ebert's ilk about this, I would advice putting down the dictionary and going [back] to a College English Department. The argument for Video Games as art is easy enough to make, especailly if you can address the "game pieces as art" complaint and make a solid case for some other forms of "interactive art."
We just don't know, do we?
Clinton was actually Impeached, by a Congress that wanted any charge possible to hang him on. If he HAD gone behind the FISA Court's back, then it's as close to certain as we can get that it'd have come out.
Remember: even Bush's FISA court bypass included notification to the "Gang of Eight", which includes (IIRC) the eight folk outside the White House who might become President.
IMNSHO, a lot of W-haters are exersizing selective amnesia regarding this case.
;)
Except that NO ONE has alleged that Clinton went around doing these things without regard to either the FISA court, or that he lied about how often he would be doing this sneaky thing.
And if you think it all started with Clinton, then I've got to tell you about this bridge near his office that he wants me to sell you. It's a historic, early 19th century suspension bridge, no less.
Psst... think past 1776 to what they did when they actually won.
The American Revolution was a war for a better government, not anarchy. And once that war was won, well, every red-blooded dissident became a red-blooded supporter of the government.
psst... if you're too ignorant to realise either how to use TweakUI or what the meaning of "useful" is, then you shouldn't be posting on /.
They had a name for folks like yourself in mid-20th-century Europe. I believe it was: collaborator...
They also had a name for the very same folk in late 18th century America. The word was patriot.
Authority is not always bad. it is always POTENTIALLY bad, but if you can't see the difference then you're probably better off in a totalitarian nanny state.
Check out the Constitution before you call for strict constructionists.
Without SCOTUS jumping from what's written to "money is speech", there isn't a prayer at all to keep Congress from simply banning campaign contributions outright. But, even if we do take money-as-speech to be vital to the First Amendment, that still doesn't mean that it cannot be legislatively limited to ensure a more-equal voice to all citizens --> similar to how it's perfectly acceptable for us to expect religions to obey our criminal laws, or for you to not exercise your right to freely be terribly loud at 4 a.m.