Hey! at least I got the liquid Helium right! thanks for the correction though, I was thinking about a demostration of superconductivity that took place at a science exhibition in England. Same scientist I think.
Actually, "magnetic resistance" is called Impedance isn't it? but if the superconductors are separated so that their magnetic fields don't interact then the practical impedance should be a "virtually null" value. Quantum theory aside, it has been proven empirically that there is no appreciable resistance in a superconductor. Even the first superconductor (a lead donut in liquid helium i believe) was able to keep a current that had been applied to it in Sweden, running at basically the same value when the donut was taken to England and the current was measured. all told I think that it will be a very interesting civil engineering experiment.
Well, the people that make the soundcards will probably put some kind of sensor on the output that detects a recording connection and degrades the output signal (witness "macrovision" on DVD players) If they do, then someone will just code a "tweaker" to alter the sound card (like the Rage tweaker that disables macrovision) and then the company will change their code and then the tweaker will change and then the code will change and then someone will code a new "pirate" firmware and then......... DOGS AND CATS, LIVING TOGETHER... MASS HYSTERIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In response to Black Parrot I would like to say that I clearly stated I understood how science works. Galileo is considered the FATHER of scientific method, and I believe I was rather clear in my analogy between his battle with theoretical science and the current situation. If you can't answer a question properly, or find it "hard to answer" then don't rely on a rude answer like "find out how science works" when I have already stated that I am familiar with scientific method.
1) In his letters, Charles Darwin said that evolution was built into the original progenitors of all modern species when god created them and that the current diversity of species was a credit to the elegance of god's original design (i.e. self-replicating/self improving organisms.) So, if Darwin believed in God, then why is it such an "intellectual" sin?
2) Science is not a religion, but Science practices dogma in the manner of the church, if you don't believe this, then take a generally accepted theory (like GR) and then come up with some kind of new theory (must be or sound reasonable) that contradicts it, publish that theory and watch the sparks fly!
3) If you look at the life of Galileo (generally accepted as the father of scientific method) you will see that he held that pure theories were almost useless and proposed that only theorems that were supported by empirical evidence, derived from scientific method, were valid. Unfortunately a lot of science (especially Physics) is derived from unproven theorems. A lot of people will argue this and the argument will generally take the form of "No, experiment X or mathematics has corrolated this theorem" The problem is that corrolation doesn't provide a proof until you can empirically disprove dissenting theorems. as an example, we are taught that the speed of light cannot be exceeded because an object's mass increases as it gains speed, and at the speed of light threshhold the power requied to pass that threshhold becomes infinite (or something like that). But have we actually travelled at the speed of light minus 1? and if we did travel at that velocity, what is to stop me from walking in the direction that the vehicle is travelling at 5 mph, thereby exceeding the speed of light (relative to the rest of the universe) by a cool 3 mph. I guess that my point is that theorems are supposed to be guides and enablers, but not gags that are used to snuff out opposing theorems before they are tested against reality.
4) last point. The start of this whole debate was that creationists wanted to teach creationism as an alternative theory of creation, and of course the dogma of "evolutionism as the only sane theory" prevailed. But someone just had to mention the perceived "separation of church and state" in the first amendment. First of all the religios part of this amendment reads "shall enact no law with respect to an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof" Most modern courts interpret this to mean that federally funded programs and schools should be devoid of religion. The problem with this is that they have made laws "prohibiting the free practice thereof" which violates the first amendment. as an example, the "pre-game prayer" that was prohibited in Texas recently, the supreme court (or any other government body" has no place issuing a law that prohibits the majority of the student body practicing their religios beliefs. Now I understand that the benediction was offensive to the parents of a couple of students, but in a Democracy, the majority rules. If the majority of a student bodies' parents want their children to commence their school day with a prayer, then let them, the students that don't believe the same can leave during the prayer, or establish their own prayer group. This is no different that the Jehova's Witnesses that I went to school with, leaving the classrom during the pledge of allegiance.
In closign I really don't want to offend anyone with this, and it should only offend the easily offended, but I am tired of the way that a lot of modern science buffs (and some professional scientists) like to say that "it's my way or the highway" and close the minds of many people to open mindedness that may lead to new and entirely "non-traditional" scientific breakthroughs. Everyone here have a good and safe (or unsafe if that floats your boat) weekend.
Well, did you ever stop to think that the "missile defense" system that is being tested in the open, is just a negotiating piece that was meant to fail? If you think about the habit of the US government to supress "compromising" information about national defense, it makes sense that the missile interceptor program is conceivably a cover for something much more effective and much more "black budget". It is well known that the best defense is one that takes the offense by surprise, so why would it benefit the DOD to advertise their failures? short answer, if it really was a failure, it wouldn't benefit them at all. Just something to consider,:) S.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! at least I got the liquid Helium right! thanks for the correction though, I was thinking about a demostration of superconductivity that took place at a science exhibition in England. Same scientist I think.
Actually, "magnetic resistance" is called Impedance isn't it? but if the superconductors are separated so that their magnetic fields don't interact then the practical impedance should be a "virtually null" value. Quantum theory aside, it has been proven empirically that there is no appreciable resistance in a superconductor. Even the first superconductor (a lead donut in liquid helium i believe) was able to keep a current that had been applied to it in Sweden, running at basically the same value when the donut was taken to England and the current was measured. all told I think that it will be a very interesting civil engineering experiment.
"dood lwek" Ah fuck! I can't figure out how to spell "Dood" backwards!
Hey, what about writing backwards? does anybody know if the gov scans for this?
Well, the people that make the soundcards will probably put some kind of sensor on the output that detects a recording connection and degrades the output signal (witness "macrovision" on DVD players) If they do, then someone will just code a "tweaker" to alter the sound card (like the Rage tweaker that disables macrovision) and then the company will change their code and then the tweaker will change and then the code will change and then someone will code a new "pirate" firmware and then......... DOGS AND CATS, LIVING TOGETHER... MASS HYSTERIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In response to Black Parrot I would like to say that I clearly stated I understood how science works. Galileo is considered the FATHER of scientific method, and I believe I was rather clear in my analogy between his battle with theoretical science and the current situation. If you can't answer a question properly, or find it "hard to answer" then don't rely on a rude answer like "find out how science works" when I have already stated that I am familiar with scientific method.
So here's mine;
1) In his letters, Charles Darwin said that evolution was built into the original progenitors of all modern species when god created them and that the current diversity of species was a credit to the elegance of god's original design (i.e. self-replicating/self improving organisms.)
So, if Darwin believed in God, then why is it such an "intellectual" sin?
2) Science is not a religion, but Science practices dogma in the manner of the church, if you don't believe this, then take a generally accepted theory (like GR) and then come up with some kind of new theory (must be or sound reasonable) that contradicts it, publish that theory and watch the sparks fly!
3) If you look at the life of Galileo (generally accepted as the father of scientific method) you will see that he held that pure theories were almost useless and proposed that only theorems that were supported by empirical evidence, derived from scientific method, were valid. Unfortunately a lot of science (especially Physics) is derived from unproven theorems. A lot of people will argue this and the argument will generally take the form of "No, experiment X or mathematics has corrolated this theorem" The problem is that corrolation doesn't provide a proof until you can empirically disprove dissenting theorems. as an example, we are taught that the speed of light cannot be exceeded because an object's mass increases as it gains speed, and at the speed of light threshhold the power requied to pass that threshhold becomes infinite (or something like that). But have we actually travelled at the speed of light minus 1? and if we did travel at that velocity, what is to stop me from walking in the direction that the vehicle is travelling at 5 mph, thereby exceeding the speed of light (relative to the rest of the universe) by a cool 3 mph. I guess that my point is that theorems are supposed to be guides and enablers, but not gags that are used to snuff out opposing theorems before they are tested against reality.
4) last point. The start of this whole debate was that creationists wanted to teach creationism as an alternative theory of creation, and of course the dogma of "evolutionism as the only sane theory" prevailed. But someone just had to mention the perceived "separation of church and state" in the first amendment. First of all the religios part of this amendment reads "shall enact no law with respect to an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof" Most modern courts interpret this to mean that federally funded programs and schools should be devoid of religion. The problem with this is that they have made laws "prohibiting the free practice thereof" which violates the first amendment. as an example, the "pre-game prayer" that was prohibited in Texas recently, the supreme court (or any other government body" has no place issuing a law that prohibits the majority of the student body practicing their religios beliefs. Now I understand that the benediction was offensive to the parents of a couple of students, but in a Democracy, the majority rules. If the majority of a student bodies' parents want their children to commence their school day with a prayer, then let them, the students that don't believe the same can leave during the prayer, or establish their own prayer group. This is no different that the Jehova's Witnesses that I went to school with, leaving the classrom during the pledge of allegiance.
In closign I really don't want to offend anyone with this, and it should only offend the easily offended, but I am tired of the way that a lot of modern science buffs (and some professional scientists) like to say that "it's my way or the highway" and close the minds of many people to open mindedness that may lead to new and entirely "non-traditional" scientific breakthroughs. Everyone here have a good and safe (or unsafe if that floats your boat) weekend.
S.
Well, did you ever stop to think that the "missile defense" system that is being tested in the open, is just a negotiating piece that was meant to fail? If you think about the habit of the US government to supress "compromising" information about national defense, it makes sense that the missile interceptor program is conceivably a cover for something much more effective and much more "black budget". It is well known that the best defense is one that takes the offense by surprise, so why would it benefit the DOD to advertise their failures? short answer, if it really was a failure, it wouldn't benefit them at all. Just something to consider, :) S.