Sound travels through matter, so consists of, well, "phonons" that are really just the slightly altered movements of the matter the sound travels through. Sound exists for as long as that extra movement exists, and for it to exist, the matter needs to be excited, ie possess energy, over and above ambient. So that means sound waves traveling perpendicular to a gravity field have a tendency to be a little less affected by that field than ambient matter. So it looks like phonons have negative mass.
So this apparent mass is an artifact of the way you look at it.
This is explicitly not what the paper is saying. I'll just quote the introduction:
Now, this effect is completely equivalent to standard
refraction: in the presence of gravity, the pressure of the
superfluid depends on depth, and so does the speed of
sound. As a result, in the geometric acoustics limit sound
waves do not propagate along straight lines. Because of
this, one might be tempted to dismiss any interpretation of this phenomenon in terms of “gravitational mass”.
However, since in the formalism of [1] the effect is due to
a coupling with gravity in the effective Lagrangian of the
phonon, the same coupling must affect the field equation
for gravity: the (tiny) effective gravitational mass of the
phonon generates a (tiny) gravitational field. The source
of this gravitational field travels with the phonon.
In other words, if you look at the phonons path, the effect of gravity on it looks just like standard refraction because, well, this is a sound wave. But the phonon itself couples to gravity, which means the phonon produces a gravitational field (albeit an extremely tiny one) as if it has negative mass. That is interesting (although probably not very interesting, as phonons are still quasiparticles, not real particles: a real particle with negative mass would revolutionize physics. A quasiparticle with negative mass might revolutionize a few scientists CVs).
I'm having trouble with the concept of negative mass, too. The phonons would not just move away from the earth, but also from the sun, from the center of the galaxy, etc... Where do you stop?
You don't have to stop. The force due to gravity is F=GMm/r^2. Make the little m negative, it becomes a repulsive force inversely proportional to the square of the distance (instead of the attractive force for positive mass).
It also seems quite difficult to reconcile this with General Relativity where, for example, you are not supposed to be able to tell whether an elevator is in a field of gravity or accelerating without gravity. Both situations ought to be equivalent (apart from tidal forces), but clearly result in opposite accelerations when negative mass is involved.
Not if the inertial mass and gravitational mass are both negative. If they are, then F=ma means acceleration is opposite the applied force, which while weird still gives equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass.
The picture itself isn't "horrifying", it's the fact that the picture (which as you say looks perfectly normal) isn't real. That "normal looking young woman" is a complete fiction of a neural network, despite looking (to the human eye anyways) perfectly real. People typically assume images of people are real, so being able to create completely realistic looking humans out of nothing allows an entirely new level of fake news.
If you think this is "blackmail" I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way blackmail works. You're supposed to *threaten* doing something bad and ask for payment in order to not do the bad thing in order to blackmail someone. Disclosure without the threat or request for payment is just a straight up "fuck you", which is very different (ethically and legally).
The logic is pretty simple. Someone sits down to work for an hour and decides to stream some Lamar. If the average Lamar song is 5 minutes, only 12 songs are played. If the average song is 3 minutes, that's 20 songs. Almost twice as many plays, so twice as much money for Lamar. Even if they don't exclusively listen to just Lamar, if they're on a playlist with different artists and, say, 20% of it is Lamar, Lamar will get 4 plays instead of 2-3, so it ends up being better for everyone (in a per-song royalty world) if the average song is shorter.
As long as the pool grows, regardless of the rate of growth it creates inflation.
That effect alone creates inflation, yes. But your original comment claimed that (and I quote)
One of the cornerstones of Crypto Currency is a static rate of inflation.
which is just completely untrue. Not only because the amount of new crypto mined in for e.g. Bitcoin (and most coins) decreases over time (which is the opposite of a "static rate of inflation"), but additionally the loss of coins due to private keys being destroyed or lost means there is a strong deflationary effect on all crypto (for instance, it's estimated that about as many Bitcoins have been lost as their are to be mined). Moreover, inflation doesn't directly depend on the raw quantity of a currency, it's the purchasing power of the currency. In that sense, crypto has been extremely deflationary for much of it's life, as the value (in nominal USD) has increased massively. Again, claiming a "static rate of inflation" is a "cornerstone of crypto currency" is just... wrong.
The reason why fat people find it so hard to lose weight and keep it off is that the body fights them. When they cut down their calorie intake it goes into starvation mode. They feel tried all the time and it reduces burn to a minimum, which ends up meaning they need to diet extremely aggressively to get anywhere and will likely be unable to keep the weight off. 1500 calories/day is neither healthy nor sustainable, but in starvation mode that's what they need to achieve.
Bullshit. "Starvation mode" doesn't exist, straight up*. What does happen is that you need fewer calories as you lose weight, because fat (like every other cell in your body) consumes energy: less fat means less energy consumed. The idea that your body can miraculously can metabolic efficiency just because you've lost some weight is garbage that makes absolutely no sense: our bodies have had literally millions of years of evolution to become basically as efficient as it's possible for a biological organism to become. And in fact meta-analysis of studies have found that in fact the energy consumption after weight loss behaves exactly as expected. Yes, you can find individual studies that look at a dozen participants that find "metabolic adaptation" (such as the Biggest Loser study you link to elsewhere), but that's because if you perform enough studies of a topic, some of them will show what you want. In the case of that study, for example, the error bars on the measurement of the resting metabolic rate are nearly as big as the "effect".
As an aside: it's very well known that the Biggest Loser competitors lost weight in a horribly unhealthy and unsustainable fashion, essentially going on a crash diet with heavy exercise to lose weight rapidly, instead of being taught to moderate their intake and lose weight over a longer period (this article has more information, as well as tons of links to studies about metabolic adaptation and weight loss). You can lose weight like that (like a Scottish man who lost 276 lbs of weight doing that), but it's unhealthy and can even be dangerous.
Also, 1500 calories/day is perfectly healthy and sustainable for extended times (how long depends on your height, weight, and level of physical activity: a tall physically active man should usually eat more, a short sedentary woman probably needs to eat even less just to maintain a healthy weight). It doesn't even really matter how you get those calories (as long as you make sure you get enough micronutrients): you can lose weight eating mostly Twinkies and Hostess cakes.
*Note that once someone starts actually starving, your body will start consuming and shutting down internal organs, which could be called "starvation mode". But that doesn't happen until you reach basically 0% body fat and 0% lean muscle. But unless you literally have no access to food for a month or so, or are working in a force labor camp on 500 calories a day, that's not happening to you. Actual starvation looks like this. Skipping your daily venti mocha frappachino? Not even close to starvation.
Never borrowing is not really a good sign of financial responsibility. Aside from the fact that using credit cards that you pay off every month actually gives you money (through rewards programs*), borrowing money for expensive purchases you could not otherwise directly afford can allow increased financial opportunities you'd not otherwise have. Taking out a mortgage to buy a house in an area where prices are rising, then selling it later. Or taking out reasonable amounts of student loan debt to get a degree that allows you to find better paying jobs. Even taking out a loan for a car allows you to take jobs you'd otherwise not be able to get to at all.
*You could argue that if people didn't use credit cards, everything would be cheaper (since merchants wouldn't have to pay credit card fees) and so it's a net negative for consumers. While that may be true, given credit cards do exist and are widely used, not using them yourself to gain rewards is financially irresponsible, since costs are the same to you whether you pay cash or not.
Most of those problems are just engineering issues which are being constantly improved: larger, lower noise systems of qubits with longer and longer coherence times are being made every single day. The issue with noise and error is, as it turns out, already a basically solved problem: quantum error correction exists. As long as your qubits are good enough, you can devise systems that are error-free. Without error correction quantum computers would almost certainly never work. With it, creating one is just an engineering problem. A hard engineering problem, to be sure, but just an engineering problem.
The article doesn't say "faster than light", but it does claim (and I quote)
Only one of these beams is sent out, but due to a quirk of quantum physics both streams will display the same changes, despite being potentially miles apart. As a result, by looking at the stream which remains back home it’s possible to work out what has happened to the other beam.
which is exactly not how entanglement works (also, if it was, it would be FTL).
Harnessing that fact to transmit classical information faster than light is a completely separate question. But nobody is claiming that is happening here.
That is exactly what the summary is claiming is happening:
As a result, by looking at the stream which remains back home it's possible to work out what has happened to the other beam.
That is precisely what you cannot do: examining the photons you have doesn't tell you any information about what has happened to the photons you sent out, the only "information" it gives you is (basically) the what the state the photons you sent out will be if they haven't interacted with anything (you don't, however, know if they have interacted with something or not). Since the point of radar is to interact with whatever you're looking for, that makes it rather pointless.
Note that a "quantum radar" could maybe improve on classical radars by comparing reflected photons to give you more information about what exactly reflected them, but it's still only useful if you get some of the photons you send out back. Even then I doubt you could actually make such a system (I'm not entirely sure it's physically or even theoretically possible). I am sure, however, the Chinese don't have such a system: they would never publicly disclose it if they did. The only reason to brag about it's existence is to either convince other countries to waste time trying to replicate it, or to convince them their stealth fighters will be useless against the Chinese. Either way, it's a purely psychological move.
We already do have that distinction in the language: sex (which is biological and generally binary, albeit in very rare cases it can be slightly less binary), because that's what the word "sex" means, and gender, which can be whatever society wants it to be, because gender refers to the societal presentation of masculinity/femininity/whatever else. People sometimes confuse the two (such as in the summary, which claims that a sentence that explicitly says "sex" is talking about "gender").
There was this idea that people would make a VR room and walk around in it, and this was driven by the idiots at Oculus more than anyone, as a means to lock out competition.
This is just straight-up not true. Oculus didn't even support room-scale VR at all for ~8 months after launch (and really never intended full room-scale VR, as shown by the fact that they still don't sell a setup with 3+ sensors you really need for decent room scale), it was Valve with the Vive that did that. Also that had nothing at all to do with locking out competition because that doesn't even make sense (how would room scale help lock out competition?)
Yet, there's absolutely NO way to "float" around a room-scale VR solution at all while seated.
Also not true. Many (most?) VR games support smooth locomotion and/or turning. I'm actually wondering if you've ever even played VR, because most of what you're saying is just, well, wrong.
The reason VR isn't "successful" is because it's just not ready for mass consumers yet. The hardware isn't there (low resolution, you need a very beefy computer to run even the current resolution), and the software honestly isn't fully there either. A fully consumer-ready VR probably needs to be lighter, wireless (or even self-contained), and have a much better display than is currently available. That'll happen, eventually, but probably not for another 5-10 years. VR is basically in the same place as early cell phones: really really cool technology with tons of potential, held back by hardware that while it works, just isn't really ready for widespread use. And that's fine: the technology is on the table, it's not going away, and it will only get better with time.
All that means is that the people who buy this art are also pretentious arrogant shitheads who don't care about the art itself, but about the cultural value surrounding the artwork (i.e. they don't want to own artwork because they like the art, but because they like being seen as someone who likes art, which is a very different thing).
A 16 year old isn't a child? What the heck are you talking about? Literally and legally, a 16 year old is a child. That's why we imprison people who fuck 16 year olds.
No, biologically and by the standards of the past few thousand or so years of human society, a 16 year old is an adult. Treating them like a child is an extremely recent cultural development due to the increased length of education typically required to get a job rather than any actual biological or physiological reason. In fact, many/most places in the US (and across the world, for that matter, including most of Europe) actually have the age of consent at 16, not 18. It's also certainly not pedophilia: by definition, pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent individuals. Any 16 year old who is still pre-pubescent has a rather extreme developmental disorder, which I suspect is not the case here.
The difference is that events A and B *did* actually have an objective ordering, it was simply that the observer's measurements (which relied on photons reflected off the event) has distortion.
No, they don't. That's almost the entire point behind relativity, that two events that cannot be causally linked (i.e. a photon from one event could not have reached the other before it happened) cannot have a definite ordering assigned to them. The order actually depends on the frame of reference. In fact, the question "what is the objective ordering of A and B" literally makes no sense, because there is no such thing as an objective ordering. It's like asking what the color purple tastes like.
There's no objective different between saying "I can't know what's in the box until I look" and "All infinite possibilities are in the box, and when I open it, I will find 1 of those realities."
But there is. Again, that's a huge point in quantum mechanics: Bell's theorem means that it isn't just that you can't know what's in the box until you look, but what's in the box isn't decided until you look. It's mathematically different from just saying you don't know what's inside until you look.
No it doesn't. In fact, there is literally an article of the Bill of Rights that says otherwise. Federal law only trumps state on on issues that are delegated by the US Constitution to the federal government.
Mind you, the political parties on both sides of the aisle have spent the past 2 hundreds years expanding what was "given" to the federal government by the US Constitution, because it's always convenient to have more power when your party holds the reigns (and once power is given to the government it never gets taken away again, short of a revolution), so we'll have to see how the courts end up ruling in this case, but a common sense interpretation of the Constitution would say that California is absolutely within their rights to do exactly what they've done.
Because re-writing the dictionary for political purposes is usually seen as a bad idea. Master and slave have a fairly precise meaning which applies perfectly in the context of computer science. Throwing those terms away because some people pretend to be offended by those words in order to exercise political power over other people, is a bad idea that sends the message to everyone else that they too can gain power over you by pretending to be offended
California has little snow, relatively few clouds (or inclement weather of any kind, for that matter), massive amounts of hydropower, and very little manufacturing or other heavy industry (which is power intensive). It's basically an ideal environment for 100% renewable energy usage, which is not true for 90% or so of the US. In the Midwest, for example, there's little hydro, and solar barely works at all in the winter when you need power or you'll freeze to death. The Southwest has at least good solar potential, but AC usage tends to be very high, and solar is pretty terrible at baseline power (in fact, aside from hydro there isn't really a solid renewable baseline power source. Nuclear *would* work, but it's not technically renewable, and environmentalists usually hate it because they don't understand how radioactivity works).
Luckey sold Oculus to Facebook for multiple billions of dollars. Dude's not fighting for anything at this point, aside from PR goodwill after selling a kickstarted company to Facebook for billions of dollars.
That people sleep less as they age due to hormonal changes and now that lack of sleep leads to weight gain (gut bacteria play a big role too).
That's not really what it found. What it found was that it changes the metabolic pathways to prefer the formation of fat tissue and retard the formation of muscle mass, so it will change the ratio between lean and fat body mass. Of course, this muscle consumes more energy than fat does, so this will end up decreasing the energy you burn, which will promote weight gain unless you change your diet.
But here's the thing: you can fix both those problems. Exercise will promote the formation of muscle mass, eating less will prevent weight gain at all, and of course sleeping better (which is often promoted by both better diet and exercise) will fix the underlying issue altogether. The fundamental problem is that modern man (especially the modern American) eats too much, because high calorie low nutrition food is cheap, readily available to nearly everyone, advertised constantly, and surrounds most people every day. It's not genetics, it's not stress, and it's not lack of sleep: all of those have existed for all of mankind's existence, and widespread obesity is an incredibly new phenomenon.
Also the gut bacteria/obesity link is vastly overstated, if a link exists at all in humans.
Bulk steel in the US costs roughly $1000 per metric tonne (depends on who you ask, that's a high estimate). At 93,000 metric tonnes, that's only $95 million dollars in steel. I strongly suspect that a 60 year old ship made of probably millions of pieces costs far more than that just to physically strip it down, not to mention the costs of reprocessing the metal. But it gets better: the ship isn't just made of steel, it's also got aluminium and copper (which, to be fair, are work 2-4 times that of steel), all of which needs to be separated out, graded, and reprocessed. Recycling might recoup some of the costs, but it's definitely not going to be nearly enough to cover it all. Maybe if it was small enough to break into cargo-container sized pieces, but this is a 342 meter long ship. Recycling it is not a trivial problem.
It took me five seconds to find that the relevant act summary states "[u]nder PIPEDA, personal information includes any factual or subjective information, recorded or not, about an identifiable individual" (emphasis mine). If they delete the pictures and don't guess an individuals identity, the information collected is not about an identifiable individual.
Slashdot Mirror
Sound travels through matter, so consists of, well, "phonons" that are really just the slightly altered movements of the matter the sound travels through. Sound exists for as long as that extra movement exists, and for it to exist, the matter needs to be excited, ie possess energy, over and above ambient. So that means sound waves traveling perpendicular to a gravity field have a tendency to be a little less affected by that field than ambient matter. So it looks like phonons have negative mass.
So this apparent mass is an artifact of the way you look at it.
This is explicitly not what the paper is saying. I'll just quote the introduction:
Now, this effect is completely equivalent to standard refraction: in the presence of gravity, the pressure of the superfluid depends on depth, and so does the speed of sound. As a result, in the geometric acoustics limit sound waves do not propagate along straight lines. Because of this, one might be tempted to dismiss any interpretation of this phenomenon in terms of “gravitational mass”. However, since in the formalism of [1] the effect is due to a coupling with gravity in the effective Lagrangian of the phonon, the same coupling must affect the field equation for gravity: the (tiny) effective gravitational mass of the phonon generates a (tiny) gravitational field. The source of this gravitational field travels with the phonon.
In other words, if you look at the phonons path, the effect of gravity on it looks just like standard refraction because, well, this is a sound wave. But the phonon itself couples to gravity, which means the phonon produces a gravitational field (albeit an extremely tiny one) as if it has negative mass. That is interesting (although probably not very interesting, as phonons are still quasiparticles, not real particles: a real particle with negative mass would revolutionize physics. A quasiparticle with negative mass might revolutionize a few scientists CVs).
I'm having trouble with the concept of negative mass, too. The phonons would not just move away from the earth, but also from the sun, from the center of the galaxy, etc... Where do you stop?
You don't have to stop. The force due to gravity is F=GMm/r^2. Make the little m negative, it becomes a repulsive force inversely proportional to the square of the distance (instead of the attractive force for positive mass).
It also seems quite difficult to reconcile this with General Relativity where, for example, you are not supposed to be able to tell whether an elevator is in a field of gravity or accelerating without gravity. Both situations ought to be equivalent (apart from tidal forces), but clearly result in opposite accelerations when negative mass is involved.
Not if the inertial mass and gravitational mass are both negative. If they are, then F=ma means acceleration is opposite the applied force, which while weird still gives equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass.
The picture itself isn't "horrifying", it's the fact that the picture (which as you say looks perfectly normal) isn't real. That "normal looking young woman" is a complete fiction of a neural network, despite looking (to the human eye anyways) perfectly real. People typically assume images of people are real, so being able to create completely realistic looking humans out of nothing allows an entirely new level of fake news.
If you think this is "blackmail" I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way blackmail works. You're supposed to *threaten* doing something bad and ask for payment in order to not do the bad thing in order to blackmail someone. Disclosure without the threat or request for payment is just a straight up "fuck you", which is very different (ethically and legally).
No, it's just a logo change. The network is still 4G LTE.
The logic is pretty simple. Someone sits down to work for an hour and decides to stream some Lamar. If the average Lamar song is 5 minutes, only 12 songs are played. If the average song is 3 minutes, that's 20 songs. Almost twice as many plays, so twice as much money for Lamar. Even if they don't exclusively listen to just Lamar, if they're on a playlist with different artists and, say, 20% of it is Lamar, Lamar will get 4 plays instead of 2-3, so it ends up being better for everyone (in a per-song royalty world) if the average song is shorter.
As long as the pool grows, regardless of the rate of growth it creates inflation.
That effect alone creates inflation, yes. But your original comment claimed that (and I quote)
One of the cornerstones of Crypto Currency is a static rate of inflation.
which is just completely untrue. Not only because the amount of new crypto mined in for e.g. Bitcoin (and most coins) decreases over time (which is the opposite of a "static rate of inflation"), but additionally the loss of coins due to private keys being destroyed or lost means there is a strong deflationary effect on all crypto (for instance, it's estimated that about as many Bitcoins have been lost as their are to be mined). Moreover, inflation doesn't directly depend on the raw quantity of a currency, it's the purchasing power of the currency. In that sense, crypto has been extremely deflationary for much of it's life, as the value (in nominal USD) has increased massively. Again, claiming a "static rate of inflation" is a "cornerstone of crypto currency" is just... wrong.
The reason why fat people find it so hard to lose weight and keep it off is that the body fights them. When they cut down their calorie intake it goes into starvation mode. They feel tried all the time and it reduces burn to a minimum, which ends up meaning they need to diet extremely aggressively to get anywhere and will likely be unable to keep the weight off. 1500 calories/day is neither healthy nor sustainable, but in starvation mode that's what they need to achieve.
Bullshit. "Starvation mode" doesn't exist, straight up*. What does happen is that you need fewer calories as you lose weight, because fat (like every other cell in your body) consumes energy: less fat means less energy consumed. The idea that your body can miraculously can metabolic efficiency just because you've lost some weight is garbage that makes absolutely no sense: our bodies have had literally millions of years of evolution to become basically as efficient as it's possible for a biological organism to become. And in fact meta-analysis of studies have found that in fact the energy consumption after weight loss behaves exactly as expected. Yes, you can find individual studies that look at a dozen participants that find "metabolic adaptation" (such as the Biggest Loser study you link to elsewhere), but that's because if you perform enough studies of a topic, some of them will show what you want. In the case of that study, for example, the error bars on the measurement of the resting metabolic rate are nearly as big as the "effect".
As an aside: it's very well known that the Biggest Loser competitors lost weight in a horribly unhealthy and unsustainable fashion, essentially going on a crash diet with heavy exercise to lose weight rapidly, instead of being taught to moderate their intake and lose weight over a longer period (this article has more information, as well as tons of links to studies about metabolic adaptation and weight loss). You can lose weight like that (like a Scottish man who lost 276 lbs of weight doing that), but it's unhealthy and can even be dangerous.
Also, 1500 calories/day is perfectly healthy and sustainable for extended times (how long depends on your height, weight, and level of physical activity: a tall physically active man should usually eat more, a short sedentary woman probably needs to eat even less just to maintain a healthy weight). It doesn't even really matter how you get those calories (as long as you make sure you get enough micronutrients): you can lose weight eating mostly Twinkies and Hostess cakes.
*Note that once someone starts actually starving, your body will start consuming and shutting down internal organs, which could be called "starvation mode". But that doesn't happen until you reach basically 0% body fat and 0% lean muscle. But unless you literally have no access to food for a month or so, or are working in a force labor camp on 500 calories a day, that's not happening to you. Actual starvation looks like this. Skipping your daily venti mocha frappachino? Not even close to starvation.
Never borrowing is not really a good sign of financial responsibility. Aside from the fact that using credit cards that you pay off every month actually gives you money (through rewards programs*), borrowing money for expensive purchases you could not otherwise directly afford can allow increased financial opportunities you'd not otherwise have. Taking out a mortgage to buy a house in an area where prices are rising, then selling it later. Or taking out reasonable amounts of student loan debt to get a degree that allows you to find better paying jobs. Even taking out a loan for a car allows you to take jobs you'd otherwise not be able to get to at all.
*You could argue that if people didn't use credit cards, everything would be cheaper (since merchants wouldn't have to pay credit card fees) and so it's a net negative for consumers. While that may be true, given credit cards do exist and are widely used, not using them yourself to gain rewards is financially irresponsible, since costs are the same to you whether you pay cash or not.
Most of those problems are just engineering issues which are being constantly improved: larger, lower noise systems of qubits with longer and longer coherence times are being made every single day. The issue with noise and error is, as it turns out, already a basically solved problem: quantum error correction exists. As long as your qubits are good enough, you can devise systems that are error-free. Without error correction quantum computers would almost certainly never work. With it, creating one is just an engineering problem. A hard engineering problem, to be sure, but just an engineering problem.
The difference between Android and IOS being that on iOS, I could choose to use either FLAC or ALAC - on Android I could only choose FLAC.
Or ALAC, if you want (since libavcodec supports it), because open-source technology is cool like that.
The article doesn't say "faster than light", but it does claim (and I quote)
Only one of these beams is sent out, but due to a quirk of quantum physics both streams will display the same changes, despite being potentially miles apart. As a result, by looking at the stream which remains back home it’s possible to work out what has happened to the other beam.
which is exactly not how entanglement works (also, if it was, it would be FTL).
Harnessing that fact to transmit classical information faster than light is a completely separate question. But nobody is claiming that is happening here.
That is exactly what the summary is claiming is happening:
As a result, by looking at the stream which remains back home it's possible to work out what has happened to the other beam.
That is precisely what you cannot do: examining the photons you have doesn't tell you any information about what has happened to the photons you sent out, the only "information" it gives you is (basically) the what the state the photons you sent out will be if they haven't interacted with anything (you don't, however, know if they have interacted with something or not). Since the point of radar is to interact with whatever you're looking for, that makes it rather pointless.
Note that a "quantum radar" could maybe improve on classical radars by comparing reflected photons to give you more information about what exactly reflected them, but it's still only useful if you get some of the photons you send out back. Even then I doubt you could actually make such a system (I'm not entirely sure it's physically or even theoretically possible). I am sure, however, the Chinese don't have such a system: they would never publicly disclose it if they did. The only reason to brag about it's existence is to either convince other countries to waste time trying to replicate it, or to convince them their stealth fighters will be useless against the Chinese. Either way, it's a purely psychological move.
We already do have that distinction in the language: sex (which is biological and generally binary, albeit in very rare cases it can be slightly less binary), because that's what the word "sex" means, and gender, which can be whatever society wants it to be, because gender refers to the societal presentation of masculinity/femininity/whatever else. People sometimes confuse the two (such as in the summary, which claims that a sentence that explicitly says "sex" is talking about "gender").
There was this idea that people would make a VR room and walk around in it, and this was driven by the idiots at Oculus more than anyone, as a means to lock out competition.
This is just straight-up not true. Oculus didn't even support room-scale VR at all for ~8 months after launch (and really never intended full room-scale VR, as shown by the fact that they still don't sell a setup with 3+ sensors you really need for decent room scale), it was Valve with the Vive that did that. Also that had nothing at all to do with locking out competition because that doesn't even make sense (how would room scale help lock out competition?)
Yet, there's absolutely NO way to "float" around a room-scale VR solution at all while seated.
Also not true. Many (most?) VR games support smooth locomotion and/or turning. I'm actually wondering if you've ever even played VR, because most of what you're saying is just, well, wrong.
The reason VR isn't "successful" is because it's just not ready for mass consumers yet. The hardware isn't there (low resolution, you need a very beefy computer to run even the current resolution), and the software honestly isn't fully there either. A fully consumer-ready VR probably needs to be lighter, wireless (or even self-contained), and have a much better display than is currently available. That'll happen, eventually, but probably not for another 5-10 years. VR is basically in the same place as early cell phones: really really cool technology with tons of potential, held back by hardware that while it works, just isn't really ready for widespread use. And that's fine: the technology is on the table, it's not going away, and it will only get better with time.
All that means is that the people who buy this art are also pretentious arrogant shitheads who don't care about the art itself, but about the cultural value surrounding the artwork (i.e. they don't want to own artwork because they like the art, but because they like being seen as someone who likes art, which is a very different thing).
A 16 year old isn't a child? What the heck are you talking about? Literally and legally, a 16 year old is a child. That's why we imprison people who fuck 16 year olds.
No, biologically and by the standards of the past few thousand or so years of human society, a 16 year old is an adult. Treating them like a child is an extremely recent cultural development due to the increased length of education typically required to get a job rather than any actual biological or physiological reason. In fact, many/most places in the US (and across the world, for that matter, including most of Europe) actually have the age of consent at 16, not 18. It's also certainly not pedophilia: by definition, pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent individuals. Any 16 year old who is still pre-pubescent has a rather extreme developmental disorder, which I suspect is not the case here.
The difference is that events A and B *did* actually have an objective ordering, it was simply that the observer's measurements (which relied on photons reflected off the event) has distortion.
No, they don't. That's almost the entire point behind relativity, that two events that cannot be causally linked (i.e. a photon from one event could not have reached the other before it happened) cannot have a definite ordering assigned to them. The order actually depends on the frame of reference. In fact, the question "what is the objective ordering of A and B" literally makes no sense, because there is no such thing as an objective ordering. It's like asking what the color purple tastes like.
There's no objective different between saying "I can't know what's in the box until I look" and "All infinite possibilities are in the box, and when I open it, I will find 1 of those realities."
But there is. Again, that's a huge point in quantum mechanics: Bell's theorem means that it isn't just that you can't know what's in the box until you look, but what's in the box isn't decided until you look. It's mathematically different from just saying you don't know what's inside until you look.
Federal Laws supersede State laws.
Period.
No it doesn't. In fact, there is literally an article of the Bill of Rights that says otherwise. Federal law only trumps state on on issues that are delegated by the US Constitution to the federal government.
Mind you, the political parties on both sides of the aisle have spent the past 2 hundreds years expanding what was "given" to the federal government by the US Constitution, because it's always convenient to have more power when your party holds the reigns (and once power is given to the government it never gets taken away again, short of a revolution), so we'll have to see how the courts end up ruling in this case, but a common sense interpretation of the Constitution would say that California is absolutely within their rights to do exactly what they've done.
Because re-writing the dictionary for political purposes is usually seen as a bad idea. Master and slave have a fairly precise meaning which applies perfectly in the context of computer science. Throwing those terms away because some people pretend to be offended by those words in order to exercise political power over other people, is a bad idea that sends the message to everyone else that they too can gain power over you by pretending to be offended
California has little snow, relatively few clouds (or inclement weather of any kind, for that matter), massive amounts of hydropower, and very little manufacturing or other heavy industry (which is power intensive). It's basically an ideal environment for 100% renewable energy usage, which is not true for 90% or so of the US. In the Midwest, for example, there's little hydro, and solar barely works at all in the winter when you need power or you'll freeze to death. The Southwest has at least good solar potential, but AC usage tends to be very high, and solar is pretty terrible at baseline power (in fact, aside from hydro there isn't really a solid renewable baseline power source. Nuclear *would* work, but it's not technically renewable, and environmentalists usually hate it because they don't understand how radioactivity works).
Luckey sold Oculus to Facebook for multiple billions of dollars. Dude's not fighting for anything at this point, aside from PR goodwill after selling a kickstarted company to Facebook for billions of dollars.
That people sleep less as they age due to hormonal changes and now that lack of sleep leads to weight gain (gut bacteria play a big role too).
That's not really what it found. What it found was that it changes the metabolic pathways to prefer the formation of fat tissue and retard the formation of muscle mass, so it will change the ratio between lean and fat body mass. Of course, this muscle consumes more energy than fat does, so this will end up decreasing the energy you burn, which will promote weight gain unless you change your diet.
But here's the thing: you can fix both those problems. Exercise will promote the formation of muscle mass, eating less will prevent weight gain at all, and of course sleeping better (which is often promoted by both better diet and exercise) will fix the underlying issue altogether. The fundamental problem is that modern man (especially the modern American) eats too much, because high calorie low nutrition food is cheap, readily available to nearly everyone, advertised constantly, and surrounds most people every day. It's not genetics, it's not stress, and it's not lack of sleep: all of those have existed for all of mankind's existence, and widespread obesity is an incredibly new phenomenon.
Also the gut bacteria/obesity link is vastly overstated, if a link exists at all in humans.
Bulk steel in the US costs roughly $1000 per metric tonne (depends on who you ask, that's a high estimate). At 93,000 metric tonnes, that's only $95 million dollars in steel. I strongly suspect that a 60 year old ship made of probably millions of pieces costs far more than that just to physically strip it down, not to mention the costs of reprocessing the metal. But it gets better: the ship isn't just made of steel, it's also got aluminium and copper (which, to be fair, are work 2-4 times that of steel), all of which needs to be separated out, graded, and reprocessed. Recycling might recoup some of the costs, but it's definitely not going to be nearly enough to cover it all. Maybe if it was small enough to break into cargo-container sized pieces, but this is a 342 meter long ship. Recycling it is not a trivial problem.
It took me five seconds to find that the relevant act summary states "[u]nder PIPEDA, personal information includes any factual or subjective information, recorded or not, about an identifiable individual" (emphasis mine). If they delete the pictures and don't guess an individuals identity, the information collected is not about an identifiable individual.