What I meant was that whatever dimensionless relationships can be constructed in the theory, they would also have to be either big numbers or little numbers or somewhere in the middle.
Some Comcast Xfinity routers have WiFi SSID and WPA encryption key hardcoded. It can be changed via software interface only to be reset when Comcast sends a firmware upgrade.
That's a little different. If Comcast changes my SSID and password, the first thing I'm going to notice is my wireless devices are no longer connected to the network. Where's the security problem in that?
Particle physics isn't my field, but neither the paper nor the blog posts seem to be interpreting it, as the BBC does, as evidence against supersymmetry.
Wow! The list of co-authors is almost as long as the article!
The standard model as a theory on its own needs extreme fine tuning to be valid all the way up to the scale where gravity becomes strong. Technically, there is a quadratic dependence on the upper scale of the theory when one calculates the quantum corrections to the Higgs mass. This leaves the theory very unnatural (even though mathematically not impossible).
Supersymmetry solves this naturalness problem by canceling the quadratic divergences. It cannot cancel exactly though (or we'd have observed supersummetry since long), so therefore a new unnaturalness problem arises when supersymmetry lives at an energy scale far above the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking (~the Higgs boson mass scale).
And that wouldn't be the case no matter what sort of universe was observed?
No, unlike American courts, Australian courts take these things seriously. They probably sat there pondering for a long time with whole list of evidence and whatnot, and came to conclusion that indeed, the person is owed $200k worth of damages for defamation.
$200k AUD is, assuming $50k salary (relatively low income), only some 4 years worth of salary. It's not a massive jackpot of any means, and most of it probably goes to the lawyer fees. You'll barely afford half a suburban flat with it here. Evidence must have stacked that the image results search for him has made him suffer some level of financial and other damages, but not as great as people seem to think. I don't know the exact court details, but some poor judge sat there and added up the sums for this.
In America, truth of the information stated is an affirmative defense against libel and slander. So if you happen to be standing next to a total douche when I snap a picture, that's your tough luck. The information is true so it's not slanderous or libelous. If I photoshop one or the other of you into the picture to make a false association, that could be libelous.
And the information isn't really defamatory. Two people standing in the same place at the same time is no big deal. I've stood next to THOUSANDS of people I don't know and who the hell cares?
They didn't. It's stated in the article. So prolific racists tweeters may have influenced the results some. I don't know if they also accounted for the common deliberate misspelling of the President's name (0bama), or referring to him as "Hussein" or other such references. I don't want to speculate on how racists on twitter usually refer to the President, but among haters on other forums, I've seen those two references at least as commonly as I've seen the man's name spelled correctly.
You know good and well that Chinese knockoffs regularly ignore all laws whether they are import restrictions, labour, environmental, or intellectual.
Those are not garage-shop phones. They're exact or slightly modified copies of phones designed by other companies and built by established contract manufacturers.
Nope. Those laws were made for the protection of the franchise contracts, so the manufacturers couldn't make a franchise agreement with a dealer and then establish another franchise within the franchisee's territory or go into direct competition with their franchisees. In the case of a company store opening in an area where there are no dealers for the brand. It's essentially protecting the value of the franchise contract from being undercut by the manufacturer. But if there is no franchise contract covering the territory... who is hurt? Dealers for OTHER BRANDS? Who the hell cares? Those dealers have no contract with Tesla and no interest to protect.
It sounds like New York and Massachusetts are trying to apply the law outside its scope.
Where is the section of the law that says that a new manufacturer with no existing franchisees in the service area can't open factory stores that would compete with other makes?
The idea that patents are what stops small competitors from producing smart phones is just not true. To make a commercial smart phone, you have to be able to do it at a cost and quality level that is similar to what big electronics manufacturers can do. There are many reasons why a small shop can't do that.
You would have to hire several electronics engineers and mechanical engineers who are as skilled at packing a lot of functions into a small package as those employed by Apple, Motorola, Samsung and HTC.
You would have to employ them for at minimum 1-2 years before you sold your first phone.
You would need your own production facility or invest enough to have a CM make a run of your phones.
You would need a sales and marketing staff capable of getting consumers' attention and trust.
You only need to start thinking about patents when you are confident you can solve all the above problems. Only companies with a lot of money to invest ever get that far. A number of companies have broken into the Android phone market. What they all had in common was a lot of money to invest in starting up a smart phone business.
Of those, I think the last might be the hardest. A smart phone is going to be an expensive item. Such items are sold on trust. The consumer has to trust that they're going to work and that they won't suffer buyer's remorse when your phone turns out to be a piece of junk and they could have had a brand-name phone that works.
Yeah, the Republicans can't have lost an election because they pitched their campaign to a narrowing segment of the electorate that wasn't big enough to elect their last candidate when that segment was bigger. It can't be because their candidate was on both sides of every issue. It can't be because their policy positions are opposed by a majority of the electorate.
Slashdot Mirror
These things work best at high temperatures. So I think cooling will be not such a problem. They don't say much about efficiency in the article.
Red Hat, as far as we know, has no evidence that RTS violated the GPL.
What I meant was that whatever dimensionless relationships can be constructed in the theory, they would also have to be either big numbers or little numbers or somewhere in the middle.
3.3 million Texans signed to say they want Barack Obama to be their President.
We lost so we don't want to play anymore.
Some Comcast Xfinity routers have WiFi SSID and WPA encryption key hardcoded. It can be changed via software interface only to be reset when Comcast sends a firmware upgrade.
That's a little different. If Comcast changes my SSID and password, the first thing I'm going to notice is my wireless devices are no longer connected to the network. Where's the security problem in that?
Here is the paper: https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1493302/files/PAPER-2012-043.pdf
Some blogs discussing the significance of the result:
http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/lhcb_evidence_rare_decay_bs_dimuons-96311
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/11/superstringy-compactifications.html#more
http://profmattstrassler.com/
Particle physics isn't my field, but neither the paper nor the blog posts seem to be interpreting it, as the BBC does, as evidence against supersymmetry.
Wow! The list of co-authors is almost as long as the article!
The standard model as a theory on its own needs extreme fine tuning to be valid all the way up to the scale where gravity becomes strong. Technically, there is a quadratic dependence on the upper scale of the theory when one calculates the quantum corrections to the Higgs mass. This leaves the theory very unnatural (even though mathematically not impossible). Supersymmetry solves this naturalness problem by canceling the quadratic divergences. It cannot cancel exactly though (or we'd have observed supersummetry since long), so therefore a new unnaturalness problem arises when supersymmetry lives at an energy scale far above the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking (~the Higgs boson mass scale).
And that wouldn't be the case no matter what sort of universe was observed?
But it sounds like this is only a problem for some variants of supersymmetry:
That's a good result in itself. All the theories that can't explain what we see in LHC and be junked.
Can you explain what an "argument from naturalness" means?
So maybe dark matter consists of Standard Model particles after all.
Not doing business in Australia would cost Google money.
No, unlike American courts, Australian courts take these things seriously. They probably sat there pondering for a long time with whole list of evidence and whatnot, and came to conclusion that indeed, the person is owed $200k worth of damages for defamation. $200k AUD is, assuming $50k salary (relatively low income), only some 4 years worth of salary. It's not a massive jackpot of any means, and most of it probably goes to the lawyer fees. You'll barely afford half a suburban flat with it here. Evidence must have stacked that the image results search for him has made him suffer some level of financial and other damages, but not as great as people seem to think. I don't know the exact court details, but some poor judge sat there and added up the sums for this.
In America, truth of the information stated is an affirmative defense against libel and slander. So if you happen to be standing next to a total douche when I snap a picture, that's your tough luck. The information is true so it's not slanderous or libelous. If I photoshop one or the other of you into the picture to make a false association, that could be libelous.
And the information isn't really defamatory. Two people standing in the same place at the same time is no big deal. I've stood next to THOUSANDS of people I don't know and who the hell cares?
Was he not actually standing next to the well-known douchebag? Was he photoshopped in?
They didn't. It's stated in the article. So prolific racists tweeters may have influenced the results some. I don't know if they also accounted for the common deliberate misspelling of the President's name (0bama), or referring to him as "Hussein" or other such references. I don't want to speculate on how racists on twitter usually refer to the President, but among haters on other forums, I've seen those two references at least as commonly as I've seen the man's name spelled correctly.
Interesting how that logic didn't fly when it was the President.
Who works for whom? Do you even remember?
You know good and well that Chinese knockoffs regularly ignore all laws whether they are import restrictions, labour, environmental, or intellectual.
Those are not garage-shop phones. They're exact or slightly modified copies of phones designed by other companies and built by established contract manufacturers.
On the contrary, I think he would find it very familiar.
The job of Congressman is crap only if you're running for reelection.
Patents don't make it illegal to do it. They make it illegal to do it without paying license fees.
It sounds like New York and Massachusetts are trying to apply the law outside its scope.
Note that it's not New York and Massachusetts who are suing Tesla, it's the car dealership associations.
I bet the courts find that they don't have standing because they don't have franchise contracts with Tesla.
Nope. Those laws were made for the protection of the franchise contracts, so the manufacturers couldn't make a franchise agreement with a dealer and then establish another franchise within the franchisee's territory or go into direct competition with their franchisees. In the case of a company store opening in an area where there are no dealers for the brand. It's essentially protecting the value of the franchise contract from being undercut by the manufacturer. But if there is no franchise contract covering the territory... who is hurt? Dealers for OTHER BRANDS? Who the hell cares? Those dealers have no contract with Tesla and no interest to protect.
It sounds like New York and Massachusetts are trying to apply the law outside its scope.
Where is the section of the law that says that a new manufacturer with no existing franchisees in the service area can't open factory stores that would compete with other makes?
The idea that patents are what stops small competitors from producing smart phones is just not true. To make a commercial smart phone, you have to be able to do it at a cost and quality level that is similar to what big electronics manufacturers can do. There are many reasons why a small shop can't do that.
You would have to hire several electronics engineers and mechanical engineers who are as skilled at packing a lot of functions into a small package as those employed by Apple, Motorola, Samsung and HTC.
You would have to employ them for at minimum 1-2 years before you sold your first phone.
You would need your own production facility or invest enough to have a CM make a run of your phones.
You would need a sales and marketing staff capable of getting consumers' attention and trust.
You only need to start thinking about patents when you are confident you can solve all the above problems. Only companies with a lot of money to invest ever get that far. A number of companies have broken into the Android phone market. What they all had in common was a lot of money to invest in starting up a smart phone business.
Of those, I think the last might be the hardest. A smart phone is going to be an expensive item. Such items are sold on trust. The consumer has to trust that they're going to work and that they won't suffer buyer's remorse when your phone turns out to be a piece of junk and they could have had a brand-name phone that works.
Yeah, the Republicans can't have lost an election because they pitched their campaign to a narrowing segment of the electorate that wasn't big enough to elect their last candidate when that segment was bigger. It can't be because their candidate was on both sides of every issue. It can't be because their policy positions are opposed by a majority of the electorate.
It must be a computer problem.