Depends on the vehicle. I've been almost that fast in the passenger side of a car (don't remember what it was), it felt fairly quick. 130-140mph can feel kinda slow and cruisy on a modern sports bike (to the point where you have to be _extremely_ careful in what you do with the throttle), whereas 60mph can feel faster/more dangerous by comparison on a 2-stroke from the 70s. A larger bike from the late 60s felt like it was going to fall apart at 110.
I tried that once with a jar of pistachios. It's really not that great, they're pointy and hard and they dig in to your penis. I don't know what all the hype is -- there probably aren't nearly as many middle easterners doing it as you'd think.
It's a damn sight more exciting, and memorable than one group of people being slightly better at kicking/throwing/chasing a ball than another group of people that evening -- and I've seen people cry, yell, shout, scream, and beat the shit out of anyone who doesn't agree with their reaction in response to sports.
Uhm, you seem to be on a rather circuitous route towards what quantum physics is all about -- or at least field theories.
To take an example, a large atomic nucleus doesn't have a bunch of distinct electrons whizzing about it, it has a bunch of electron-ness in its general vicinity.
The electron-ness can only be poked/prodded removed and replaced in set amounts. Electron-ness consists of energy, charge, spin and a few other things. These quantities must always be added and removed in specific ratios if you're adding or removing electron-ness. You must remove charge in chunks of 1 electron/proton charge, angular momentum in a fundamental unit of spin (plus a bit if your whole system is spinning), energy in electron masses plus a bit if your whole system is at a different potential, and so on.
But when the electron-ness is all together, there's no way we know of to distinguish the different bits, and it's even provable that they share certain pieces of information.
So to go back to your glass analogy, it's as if we discover that we can break an iphone screen into five chunks of glass, and _everything_ glass is made of some integer multiple of chunks that mass. When you have a whole piece of glass, it looks like that -- an unbroken whole, but you can only break bits of a certain mass off no matter what you try (the concept of size is a bit more finnicky). Also if you hit one part of the screen really hard and listen to the echo it'll sound like that portion of the screen was an individual chunk, much smaller than one fifth of the screen for a moment, but if you wait a little while and poke it gently it looks like one unbroken whole again.
Any recognisable pattern is potential for further encryption. Combine that with however many thousands of years of improvement in compression algorithms and spatial multiplexing/directed antennae/interferometry and you'd wind up with any incorrect position/missing piece of knowledge/missing extremely narrow band filter just giving you random noise.
Perhaps what we should be looking for instead is regions that emit nothing resembling any pattern over the entire spectrum -- but lots of it -- (rather than the expected natural patterns).
This is assuming there is continued pressure for more bandwidth in EM for whatever reason, which could easily be false for many reasons (population cap, other methods of communication etc etc).
Come to think of it, point to point x-rays would be capable of carrying far more information than any form of radio frequency EM. We already have x-ray lasers, maybe we've already found stray communication in the form of those pesky inexplicable cosmic rays?
I wasn't entirely clear there.
The important point to take away which I somehow didn't mention is:
The aberration doesn't make the gravity point where the sun is at all times, but rather where it would be now if it kept moving as it was moving 8 minutes ago. If you were somehow accelerate the sun in a different direction rapidly, or remove it entirely, we would still have 8 minutes of everything on earth seeming like the sun is still doing what it was doing, with gravity pointing at where the sun would be if you hadn't interfered.
The sun does in fact appear in a different direction to its gravitational field. This is what generates the misonception that it travels faster than C. If you use the newtonian formula, the position you have to use is the sun's actual present position. This doesn't actually have anything to do with mystical ftl properties, but is a relic of not using relativistic corrections. You get an almost identical result using the coulomb gauge with EM on charges that have mass ratios equal to their charge ratios (barring the negative sign).
You don't even need GR to fix it. Using a naive special relativistic gravity theory will get the correct result (in this case, you need GR for other stuff though).
There's a good paper by....I think it was Bohr.. floating about on the subject which is understandable to those who only have EM and weak or no understanding of GR.
If anyone cares I'll see if I can dig it up.
Trusting journalists is almost always a mistake.
Any time I gain sufficient knowledge on a topic to know what's going on before the journalists pick up on it, I find articles from almost any news source with completely unreferenced, poorly explained or downright wrong simplifications to what they're talking about.
Unfortunately the topics on which my knowledge is that deep and up to date are somewhat limited. So i can't say if it's endemic.
When you're talking algorithm design, a few orders of magnitude is frequently neither here nor there. Roughly seven orders of magnitude between an ipad and top end supercomputer. This is a lot, but it's not really going to buy you as much as moving from an N^2 to an NlogN algorithm
TWENTY DASH SEVEN DASH CHARACTERS OUGHT TO BE ENOUGH FOR ANYONE STOP
Now to avoid the lameness filter comma I apostrophe m going to have to say something productive mdash or at least make a more extended version of the parent apostrophe s joke stop carriage return Nope nothing productive comes to mind stop
Because I don't need the bloaty mess of KDE or Gnome?
Configuration? The gui tools seem to change every 5 weeks anyway, so I wind up learning which text files to edit eventually anyway.
Buttons and widgets? Tmux and pentadactyl status bars are enough visual output, for input I already have buttons...they're on my keyboard.
Menus? I have a command line, or dmenu, or just add keyboard shortcuts to dwm for common functions.
One gripe with dwm is that most browsers when combined with certain webpages (mostly flash, i'm looking at you, youtube) seem to fail to figure out how wide their tile is.
Not to mention most of them have package signing these days so you don't wind up playing the 'is this the right piece of software with this name?' game every time you have a fresh install.
Hmmm....Idunno. If you had powerful enough antennas in the exact right arrangement you could theoretically power it up again via induction.
I don't know if there's any equipment that's both that precise and that powerful though...sounds like an interesting challenge.
Maybe add a faraday cage to the list.
Or rather we have an extremely large number of highly specialised cores.
You can often manage to do two or more things at once if you're not using the same hardware for both tasks. One example from my recent life would be walking, folding some origami (a crane which is a pattern I've done enough that I don't have to think about it at all), holding a conversation, and looking something interesting.
Those last two can hinder each other a bit (both use the focus on something consciously bit), but the others are orthogonal as far as I can tell.
I would imagine that someone who texts for 8 hours a day whilst spending a large portion of their time not looking at their phone and drives for the other 8 (for a period of a few years on the same model phone/car) could safely combine the two activities -- at least providing that the conversation was dull and didn't cause them to have to think about something too hard. I'm certainly not going to try it (I won't even use hands free, I pull over), and I doubt that the vast majority of people could, either (and could judge when to suspend the conversation if it took too much attention).
Huh? Scientists are always looking for things to believe that aren't what they currently believe to be true. It's kinda what they do.
No forcing involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the vehicle. I've been almost that fast in the passenger side of a car (don't remember what it was), it felt fairly quick. 130-140mph can feel kinda slow and cruisy on a modern sports bike (to the point where you have to be _extremely_ careful in what you do with the throttle), whereas 60mph can feel faster/more dangerous by comparison on a 2-stroke from the 70s. A larger bike from the late 60s felt like it was going to fall apart at 110.
I tried that once with a jar of pistachios. It's really not that great, they're pointy and hard and they dig in to your penis. I don't know what all the hype is -- there probably aren't nearly as many middle easterners doing it as you'd think.
Posting to remove misclicked mod.
It's a damn sight more exciting, and memorable than one group of people being slightly better at kicking/throwing/chasing a ball than another group of people that evening -- and I've seen people cry, yell, shout, scream, and beat the shit out of anyone who doesn't agree with their reaction in response to sports.
Uhm, you seem to be on a rather circuitous route towards what quantum physics is all about -- or at least field theories.
To take an example, a large atomic nucleus doesn't have a bunch of distinct electrons whizzing about it, it has a bunch of electron-ness in its general vicinity.
The electron-ness can only be poked/prodded removed and replaced in set amounts. Electron-ness consists of energy, charge, spin and a few other things. These quantities must always be added and removed in specific ratios if you're adding or removing electron-ness. You must remove charge in chunks of 1 electron/proton charge, angular momentum in a fundamental unit of spin (plus a bit if your whole system is spinning), energy in electron masses plus a bit if your whole system is at a different potential, and so on.
But when the electron-ness is all together, there's no way we know of to distinguish the different bits, and it's even provable that they share certain pieces of information.
So to go back to your glass analogy, it's as if we discover that we can break an iphone screen into five chunks of glass, and _everything_ glass is made of some integer multiple of chunks that mass. When you have a whole piece of glass, it looks like that -- an unbroken whole, but you can only break bits of a certain mass off no matter what you try (the concept of size is a bit more finnicky). Also if you hit one part of the screen really hard and listen to the echo it'll sound like that portion of the screen was an individual chunk, much smaller than one fifth of the screen for a moment, but if you wait a little while and poke it gently it looks like one unbroken whole again.
Any recognisable pattern is potential for further encryption. Combine that with however many thousands of years of improvement in compression algorithms and spatial multiplexing/directed antennae/interferometry and you'd wind up with any incorrect position/missing piece of knowledge/missing extremely narrow band filter just giving you random noise.
Perhaps what we should be looking for instead is regions that emit nothing resembling any pattern over the entire spectrum -- but lots of it -- (rather than the expected natural patterns).
This is assuming there is continued pressure for more bandwidth in EM for whatever reason, which could easily be false for many reasons (population cap, other methods of communication etc etc).
Come to think of it, point to point x-rays would be capable of carrying far more information than any form of radio frequency EM. We already have x-ray lasers, maybe we've already found stray communication in the form of those pesky inexplicable cosmic rays?
I wasn't entirely clear there.
The important point to take away which I somehow didn't mention is:
The aberration doesn't make the gravity point where the sun is at all times, but rather where it would be now if it kept moving as it was moving 8 minutes ago. If you were somehow accelerate the sun in a different direction rapidly, or remove it entirely, we would still have 8 minutes of everything on earth seeming like the sun is still doing what it was doing, with gravity pointing at where the sun would be if you hadn't interfered.
The sun does in fact appear in a different direction to its gravitational field. This is what generates the misonception that it travels faster than C. If you use the newtonian formula, the position you have to use is the sun's actual present position. This doesn't actually have anything to do with mystical ftl properties, but is a relic of not using relativistic corrections. You get an almost identical result using the coulomb gauge with EM on charges that have mass ratios equal to their charge ratios (barring the negative sign).
You don't even need GR to fix it. Using a naive special relativistic gravity theory will get the correct result (in this case, you need GR for other stuff though).
There's a good paper by....I think it was Bohr.. floating about on the subject which is understandable to those who only have EM and weak or no understanding of GR.
If anyone cares I'll see if I can dig it up.
Well that's the beautiful thing. With the RIAA and MPAA gone, there will be music and movies again, instead of whatever it is that they are marketing.
Yes.
I'm 100% sure of it. That's how I know there are plenty of people smarter than me.
The thing about smart people is that they're never 100% sure of anything. They think too much for that.
Trusting journalists is almost always a mistake.
Any time I gain sufficient knowledge on a topic to know what's going on before the journalists pick up on it, I find articles from almost any news source with completely unreferenced, poorly explained or downright wrong simplifications to what they're talking about.
Unfortunately the topics on which my knowledge is that deep and up to date are somewhat limited. So i can't say if it's endemic.
You've assumed your two error sources are independant.
Hardly erring on the side of caution when you're using the same ruler.
The joke is he's pretending you were talking about a penis
...
or vagaina
When you're talking algorithm design, a few orders of magnitude is frequently neither here nor there. Roughly seven orders of magnitude between an ipad and top end supercomputer. This is a lot, but it's not really going to buy you as much as moving from an N^2 to an NlogN algorithm
TWENTY DASH SEVEN DASH CHARACTERS OUGHT TO BE ENOUGH FOR ANYONE STOP
Now to avoid the lameness filter comma I apostrophe m going to have to say something productive mdash or at least make a more extended version of the parent apostrophe s joke stop carriage return Nope nothing productive comes to mind stop
Because I don't need the bloaty mess of KDE or Gnome?
Configuration? The gui tools seem to change every 5 weeks anyway, so I wind up learning which text files to edit eventually anyway.
Buttons and widgets? Tmux and pentadactyl status bars are enough visual output, for input I already have buttons...they're on my keyboard.
Menus? I have a command line, or dmenu, or just add keyboard shortcuts to dwm for common functions.
One gripe with dwm is that most browsers when combined with certain webpages (mostly flash, i'm looking at you, youtube) seem to fail to figure out how wide their tile is.
I used to keep up with all the new memes and not repeat tired old ones, then I took an arrow to the knee
or vagina.
No, you post your dupes on the _front_ page.
Not to mention most of them have package signing these days so you don't wind up playing the 'is this the right piece of software with this name?' game every time you have a fresh install.
ATM
Doesn't solve all of it, but most of them, at least.
Hmmm....Idunno. If you had powerful enough antennas in the exact right arrangement you could theoretically power it up again via induction.
I don't know if there's any equipment that's both that precise and that powerful though...sounds like an interesting challenge.
Maybe add a faraday cage to the list.
Or rather we have an extremely large number of highly specialised cores.
You can often manage to do two or more things at once if you're not using the same hardware for both tasks. One example from my recent life would be walking, folding some origami (a crane which is a pattern I've done enough that I don't have to think about it at all), holding a conversation, and looking something interesting.
Those last two can hinder each other a bit (both use the focus on something consciously bit), but the others are orthogonal as far as I can tell.
I would imagine that someone who texts for 8 hours a day whilst spending a large portion of their time not looking at their phone and drives for the other 8 (for a period of a few years on the same model phone/car) could safely combine the two activities -- at least providing that the conversation was dull and didn't cause them to have to think about something too hard. I'm certainly not going to try it (I won't even use hands free, I pull over), and I doubt that the vast majority of people could, either (and could judge when to suspend the conversation if it took too much attention).
Huh? Scientists are always looking for things to believe that aren't what they currently believe to be true. It's kinda what they do.
No forcing involved.
Speak for yourself.