Jupiter's Moon Europa May Have Water Plumes That Rise Up About 125 Miles
Ugh. I know the country that made the telescope that saw the plumes still insists on using miles, but can't we at least agree to outlaw imperial measurements for anything to do with space?
Max von Sydow was Scott's original choice to play Weyland, but the casting of Pearce made it possible for him to portray Weyland as both an elderly character, and a younger man who appeared in an earlier script draft.
Right there on the page you linked to.
Personally I think Guy Pearce is a terrible actor. Even Max Von Sydow couldn't have saved Prometheus, though.
The sole purpose of flying a drone is to take videos or photos
No it isn't. I rarely use the non-transmitting crappy camera on my drone. I fly it because it's fun to fly.
Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.
No, some.
Of course the ones who've bought drones with good cameras are more likely to have bought them specifically to get video. But it won't be exclusive, and there are plenty of people with drones with no camera at all.
None of those things should ever be an issue in the first place. Are there good reasons to keep an eye on the use of tabs and spaces? Yes, sometimes. Should they ever stop your code compiling or have any effect on how it compiles? Hell no - just as using all caps for variable names, if you choose to do so, shouldn't.
If you get stuck up on indents being a problem, I'll respectfully submit that it's not the language's fault...
By that logic, doesn't any crazy and pointless thing a language might require get a free pass? What if I fork Go and my new language requires each line to be numbered? If you get stuck up on that, it's not the language's fault...
Sorry, ignore my other post. I could some confused idea about what you were replying to.
The fact that causality may appear to be broken from some other reference frame is all very interesting, but ultimately irrelevant.
It's not that it may appear to be broken, it's that it would be broken.
If something could travel faster than light in one reference frame, then it would, literally, be travelling backwards in time in some other reference frame. It's an inescapable and proven consequence of how spacetime is divided into space and time differently by different observers.
It (the spot) will "move" from the initial position to that "next position" faster than a light-speed signal could do so over the surface of the Moon.
Forget the delay. Just imagine that someone else is sweeping the laser pointer and you're just watching the result, so any delay from the Earth to the Moon is of no interest to you - in fact, maybe you don't even know it's someone on Earth doing it. What you would see is a spot "moving" across the surface of the Moon apparently faster than the speed of light.
You do realize this is a US based news site, right?
Is it? I hadn't seen a flag on it. It doesn't give much, if any, indication of where it is based or who it is aimed at. According to Alexa only 45.3% of its readers are US based.
Your complaint would be like me going on the register and bitching about UK centric news headlines, in which the primarily UK readership there would appropriately tell me to sod off....
It's not about UK or US centric, it's about not being clear when dishing out statistics.
Can you find a headline/story at the Register which similarly gives a statistic in this way? If anything, they go out of their way to be clear when they are talking about "UK jobs" or "British universities" rather than just assuming everyone will know that's what they meant.
Still, I suppose Slashdot can't really write the headline in the proper shitty clickbait style ("You/your") if they're expected to be clear who it applies to, because they want everyone to think it applies to them.
You're Paying 40% More For TV Than You Were 5 Years Ago
Jesus Christ. You know, some of us are capable of being interested in a headline even if it doesn't try to directly address us.
It's so fucking condescending.
According to data from Leichtman Research's annual study, pay TV subscriptions keep going up and up. So much so that in the last five years, they have gone up by 40 percent.
...in the USA, I assume this means. There are other countries, Slashdot. And even if that wasn't the case, your average Slashdotter is probably more likely to have "cut the cord" than most people. Know your readers.
Look at the original headline: "Americans are paying 40% more for TV than they were 5 years ago." Informative and to the point without treating the reader like a five-year-old.
My "subscription" hasn't gone up my nearly that much.
Amazon UK has been found guilty and fined 65,000 euro
No, it was pounds (British ones, specifically).
Also, there is a symbol for both the pound and the euro. Mind you, knowing Slashdot, it would probably display as Ãc.
(Jesus, I couldn't even paste in a string of nonsense ASCII characters without Slashdot screwing it up somehow. That c was supposed to be a , but doing that resulted in an â
when one party performs its measurement, the wave functions for both of the entangled particles collapse out of their superimposed states simultaneously, no matter how far apart they might be.
I'm not sure that can be said to be true. There is no definite "simultaneously" for spatially separated objects.
If one person makes a measurement, then the other's state will have been collapsed. But I don't think you can make any statement about when it happened.
I know there have been experiments that put an lower limit of so many thousand times the speed of light on it, but I'm not really sure such numbers make proper sense.
Why should I believe you? Based upon what? Upon you saying so or other person saying so? How can anyone be sure about the exact outputs under so uncertain conditions?
Again, you are being too pedantic. Is there, possibly, some hitherto unknown physical phenomena that would stop the suggested idea working? Well, if there is, it has never shown itself.
Pulsars do the equivalent of what was suggested all the time. They are thousands of light years away, and they are sweeping signals around the entire 360 degrees of their view of the universe in fractions of a second. We've seen nothing interfering with them, so there is absolutely no reason to assume that the OP's thought experiment wouldn't work. But even that is missing the whole point.
You can continue in the theoretical world for as long as you wish, but claiming that your theory has practical applicability is a different story.
Gah! Once again, it is not about practical applicability. The OP was trying to give an example, a thought experiment, to help you understand. But you seem hell-bent on throwing his helpfulness in his face.
By the way, I am perfectly aware about the speed of light value
Jesus. Stop acting so righteously offended. I wasn't being condescending. I wrote it out because I wanted to avoid saying "at the speed of light below the speed of light," that's all.
Despite having a quite strong opinion on this specific front, I don't want to discuss about any of this. I am not trying to be rude or to assume anything about your particular behaviour, it is just not seeing the point in continuing (some past experiences together with the reality of "I don't really care/need to convince anyone").
Then perhaps you should just keep quiet instead of starting arguments if you have no intention of concluding them.
If both parties are guaranteed to get the same information at the same time
Not "at the same time."
then at least one piece of information has been shared faster than light: both parties know the moment at which the other party received the information.
No they don't. All that can infer is that if - and when - the other party measured the photon - and if nothing has disturbed it beforehand - they will get the same result. They won't actually know what happened until they compare notes classically.
The other party may have made their measurement a hundred years earlier, or a hundred years later, or even at a point in spacetime which can not be said to be either earlier or later (thanks to relativity).
No information passes from A to B, or from B to A.
Slashdot Mirror
The UK's Largest Sperm Bank Is Now An App
So any company or service provider that releases an app is now an app?
I rather think there might be a few services (a handful, you might say) which the bank in question can't dish out via an app.
Well it... because you... you see, it's...
Just shut up, that's what!
Jupiter's Moon Europa May Have Water Plumes That Rise Up About 125 Miles
Ugh. I know the country that made the telescope that saw the plumes still insists on using miles, but can't we at least agree to outlaw imperial measurements for anything to do with space?
Especially spacecraft design and fuelling...
Max von Sydow was Scott's original choice to play Weyland, but the casting of Pearce made it possible for him to portray Weyland as both an elderly character, and a younger man who appeared in an earlier script draft.
Right there on the page you linked to.
Personally I think Guy Pearce is a terrible actor. Even Max Von Sydow couldn't have saved Prometheus, though.
First, All Gore never said that.
That's okay, because GP isn't actually Al Gore.
The sole purpose of flying a drone is to take videos or photos
No it isn't. I rarely use the non-transmitting crappy camera on my drone. I fly it because it's fun to fly.
Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.
No, some.
Of course the ones who've bought drones with good cameras are more likely to have bought them specifically to get video. But it won't be exclusive, and there are plenty of people with drones with no camera at all.
None of those things should ever be an issue in the first place. Are there good reasons to keep an eye on the use of tabs and spaces? Yes, sometimes. Should they ever stop your code compiling or have any effect on how it compiles? Hell no - just as using all caps for variable names, if you choose to do so, shouldn't.
If you get stuck up on indents being a problem, I'll respectfully submit that it's not the language's fault...
By that logic, doesn't any crazy and pointless thing a language might require get a free pass? What if I fork Go and my new language requires each line to be numbered? If you get stuck up on that, it's not the language's fault...
Sorry, ignore my other post. I could some confused idea about what you were replying to.
The fact that causality may appear to be broken from some other reference frame is all very interesting, but ultimately irrelevant.
It's not that it may appear to be broken, it's that it would be broken.
If something could travel faster than light in one reference frame, then it would, literally, be travelling backwards in time in some other reference frame. It's an inescapable and proven consequence of how spacetime is divided into space and time differently by different observers.
Which means nothing, since causality can only be determined in the reference frame where the action (i.e. the acceleration) is occurring.
Yes, exactly. That was the whole point of bringing this up in the first place, as per the top-level post:
My favorite way to explain the difference between something "happening" FTL and useful information not being able to travel FTL is this:
You've missed the point.
then move to the next position.
It (the spot) will "move" from the initial position to that "next position" faster than a light-speed signal could do so over the surface of the Moon.
Forget the delay. Just imagine that someone else is sweeping the laser pointer and you're just watching the result, so any delay from the Earth to the Moon is of no interest to you - in fact, maybe you don't even know it's someone on Earth doing it. What you would see is a spot "moving" across the surface of the Moon apparently faster than the speed of light.
You do realize this is a US based news site, right?
Is it? I hadn't seen a flag on it. It doesn't give much, if any, indication of where it is based or who it is aimed at. According to Alexa only 45.3% of its readers are US based.
Your complaint would be like me going on the register and bitching about UK centric news headlines, in which the primarily UK readership there would appropriately tell me to sod off....
It's not about UK or US centric, it's about not being clear when dishing out statistics.
Can you find a headline/story at the Register which similarly gives a statistic in this way? If anything, they go out of their way to be clear when they are talking about "UK jobs" or "British universities" rather than just assuming everyone will know that's what they meant.
Still, I suppose Slashdot can't really write the headline in the proper shitty clickbait style ("You/your") if they're expected to be clear who it applies to, because they want everyone to think it applies to them.
You're Paying 40% More For TV Than You Were 5 Years Ago
Jesus Christ. You know, some of us are capable of being interested in a headline even if it doesn't try to directly address us.
It's so fucking condescending.
According to data from Leichtman Research's annual study, pay TV subscriptions keep going up and up. So much so that in the last five years, they have gone up by 40 percent.
...in the USA, I assume this means. There are other countries, Slashdot. And even if that wasn't the case, your average Slashdotter is probably more likely to have "cut the cord" than most people. Know your readers.
Look at the original headline: "Americans are paying 40% more for TV than they were 5 years ago." Informative and to the point without treating the reader like a five-year-old.
My "subscription" hasn't gone up my nearly that much.
Hah, not it wasn't, it was £65K! Now everybody looks stupid, including me!
$68K
It wasn't $68K. The summary says it was €68K, but it wasn't that either. It was £68K.
You there, fill it up with petroleum distillate and revulcanize my tyres post-haste!
And then I hit Submit too early. Bah. Fergeddit.
Amazon UK has been found guilty and fined 65,000 euro
No, it was pounds (British ones, specifically).
Also, there is a symbol for both the pound and the euro. Mind you, knowing Slashdot, it would probably display as Ãc.
(Jesus, I couldn't even paste in a string of nonsense ASCII characters without Slashdot screwing it up somehow. That c was supposed to be a , but doing that resulted in an â
Words can mean different things in different contexts.
when one party performs its measurement, the wave functions for both of the entangled particles collapse out of their superimposed states simultaneously, no matter how far apart they might be.
I'm not sure that can be said to be true. There is no definite "simultaneously" for spatially separated objects.
If one person makes a measurement, then the other's state will have been collapsed. But I don't think you can make any statement about when it happened.
I know there have been experiments that put an lower limit of so many thousand times the speed of light on it, but I'm not really sure such numbers make proper sense.
Why should I believe you? Based upon what? Upon you saying so or other person saying so? How can anyone be sure about the exact outputs under so uncertain conditions?
Again, you are being too pedantic. Is there, possibly, some hitherto unknown physical phenomena that would stop the suggested idea working? Well, if there is, it has never shown itself.
Pulsars do the equivalent of what was suggested all the time. They are thousands of light years away, and they are sweeping signals around the entire 360 degrees of their view of the universe in fractions of a second. We've seen nothing interfering with them, so there is absolutely no reason to assume that the OP's thought experiment wouldn't work. But even that is missing the whole point.
You can continue in the theoretical world for as long as you wish, but claiming that your theory has practical applicability is a different story.
Gah! Once again, it is not about practical applicability. The OP was trying to give an example, a thought experiment, to help you understand. But you seem hell-bent on throwing his helpfulness in his face.
By the way, I am perfectly aware about the speed of light value
Jesus. Stop acting so righteously offended. I wasn't being condescending. I wrote it out because I wanted to avoid saying "at the speed of light below the speed of light," that's all.
Despite having a quite strong opinion on this specific front, I don't want to discuss about any of this. I am not trying to be rude or to assume anything about your particular behaviour, it is just not seeing the point in continuing (some past experiences together with the reality of "I don't really care/need to convince anyone").
Then perhaps you should just keep quiet instead of starting arguments if you have no intention of concluding them.
When compared to dial-up speeds of about 56 Kbps
Okaaay, crazy old man, back to bed and the nurse'll be round with the green pills.
"Dial-up" indeed.
So what you're saying is, you want him to stop speaking unless he says what you want him to say...?
But you can't construct the key without communicating classically to collate your measurements. The key doesn't exist until that is done.
If both parties are guaranteed to get the same information at the same time
Not "at the same time."
then at least one piece of information has been shared faster than light: both parties know the moment at which the other party received the information.
No they don't. All that can infer is that if - and when - the other party measured the photon - and if nothing has disturbed it beforehand - they will get the same result. They won't actually know what happened until they compare notes classically.
The other party may have made their measurement a hundred years earlier, or a hundred years later, or even at a point in spacetime which can not be said to be either earlier or later (thanks to relativity).
No information passes from A to B, or from B to A.