While, as noted, you can enter $0 and download it for free, I see that they have used their UI-creating skills to do their best to imply that you have to give them money. Pretty sneaky.
So, it has come to this. An article on Slashdot about covering up blinking lights.
one network architect complains that when they disable the LEDs altogether, "I invariably get a ticket (or more) that the access point is offline and wireless is broken because there are no lights on..."
Then cover them with black masking tape. Voila, no lights. Plus, everyone can see why there are no lights, so they won't be psychologically fooled into thinking the thing isn't working. And if there really is a problem, they can peel back the tape and have a look.
But it's preserved within a rest frame. What you're proposing - particles losing energy as they pass through expanding space until they come to a stop relative to the CMB - seems to violate this. If an object is, at one moment, moving relative to the CMB frame, and then a few moments later it has come to rest relative to the CMB, that violates conservation of energy.
But I can see that's a complicated one and maybe I haven't got my head around it. I still don't see how you can define a "frame" for expansion, though, nor how you can definitively equate it to the CMB, as per my Big Bang example. The universe started out as a hot opaque soup of protons and electrons. All the CMB gives us is a rough indication of the average velocity of our bit of that soup when it cooled.
Think of it in terms of energy: as photons propagate through an expanding space, their wavelengths increase, i.e. they lose energy.
But only from the point of view of someone in their path. Imagining a massive object instead (since things get weird if you start about photons' points of view), from its point of view it doesn't lose energy, and from the point of view of someone behind it it will gain energy.
If you take an entire system and get it moving through space at 0.5c relative to the CMB, all the same laws still apply and the same slowing-due-to-expansion will still happen to the same magnitude, and the system will evolve in the same way, won't it?
It seems to me that objects don't slow towards a particular rest frame; they slow towards the rest frames of all observers ahead of them. And they accelerate away from the rest frames of all observers behind them.
Going back a bit:
Any free body in motion relative to that reference frame will eventually slow down and come to rest with respect to the CMB frame.
Wouldn't that violate conservation of energy (which is preserved within a rest frame)?
It seems to me that the CMB rest frame is still no more special than any other.
For all we know, when the universe first popped into existence, something caused the cloud of gas that became our observable universe to get kicked out in a random direction. Then what we see as our CMB is actually moving relative to some other CMB in some other inaccessible part of the universe. It's all relative.
To put it another way, if we think of a "grid" of space under our feet (as we sit still relative to the CMB), and that grid is expanding, it doesn't matter whether it's also sliding in a particular direction at a 0.1c, 0.5c, or 0.999c.
a photon moving in an expanding universe redshifts
Only from the point of view of an observer somewhere in its future light cone. To the person who fired the photon, or anyone else in the past light cone, it would blueshift (not that they can detect it any more).
Or to put in another way, if two photons are travelling in opposite directions, expansion will redshift them both, according to anyone who might detect either of them. But that means their momentums have changed by opposite amounts, so they can't both have been "slowed" (not the right word when you're talking about light, but it'll do, and the same applies to massive objects as well) towards the same rest frame.
That page you linked to with the photo is also copyrighted though, just by existing. What's to stop the owner of the target link from suing over that copyright?
It sounds to me like the ruling is about linking to material which is already in violation of copyright - not about linking to copyrighted material.
Someone posts a link to your copyrighted photo on your server? Not a problem (well, possibly, but not in the light of this ruling). Someone takes your photo, publishes it elsewhere (in violation of copyright), then someone else links to that image? That's what this covers, as far as I can tell.
That means time can do more than go to and fro. So the question becomes, what does the unreal part of time (the Y co-ordinate) do, where does that piece of time go?
It's not actually special, though, is it? Things will slow down because they'll be hit by higher energy photons from one side than the other unless they're at rest (on average) with the CMB frame - is that what you were getting at?
This is an effect due to cosmic expansion
If the universe stopped expanding tomorrow, wouldn't it still be the case?
Well... kinda. Not everyone's arrow of time has to point in exactly the same direction. It doesn't seem possible for any two arrows to be more than 90 degrees apart, though.
Jesus Christ, that article's written in worse English than anything I've ever seen on Slashdot.
They added that when investigators they tried to find out what they could about Yearwood, discovered the post and he was arrested the very next day.
Okay, skipping the terrible English, if investigators were "trying to find out what they could," would this not include, y'know, checking for outstanding warrants the old-fashioned way? In other words, is it just remotely possible that his Facebook photo had nothing whatsoever to do with him getting found out?
Well, yes, and in the case of things like "drone" it's not too bothersome, since alternatives and clarifications are readily available.
I still think it's worth fighting for "begs the question," though, since a) accepting defeat means losing the useful original meaning and b) it doesn't actually mean, once you take the individual words, what it is being used to mean, which is "raises the question." Begging is in no sense related to raising.
I'm going to start using "begets the question" just to confuse people even further.
Slashdot Mirror
Because dolphins can misquote too.
There are a lot of language using animals which are not yet recognized.
So how do you know about 'em?
While, as noted, you can enter $0 and download it for free, I see that they have used their UI-creating skills to do their best to imply that you have to give them money. Pretty sneaky.
Typical, an AC who for some reason thinks Slashdot should be immune from criticism.
So, it has come to this. An article on Slashdot about covering up blinking lights.
one network architect complains that when they disable the LEDs altogether, "I invariably get a ticket (or more) that the access point is offline and wireless is broken because there are no lights on..."
Then cover them with black masking tape. Voila, no lights. Plus, everyone can see why there are no lights, so they won't be psychologically fooled into thinking the thing isn't working. And if there really is a problem, they can peel back the tape and have a look.
Bloody hell...
Widdly-weep. Widdly-weep. Widdly-weep.
Captain, this entire planet is made of widdly-weep.
This is because the paragraph above was posted as a correction to the article.
Otherwise the article gives the impression that the pilots were so incompetent as to not even realise which country they were in.
Can you persuade a third party to unwittingly apply a hammer or a bottle of water to their own device?
Or can you attack a device with a hammer or bottle of water and leave no obvious physical evidence?
But it's preserved within a rest frame. What you're proposing - particles losing energy as they pass through expanding space until they come to a stop relative to the CMB - seems to violate this. If an object is, at one moment, moving relative to the CMB frame, and then a few moments later it has come to rest relative to the CMB, that violates conservation of energy.
But I can see that's a complicated one and maybe I haven't got my head around it. I still don't see how you can define a "frame" for expansion, though, nor how you can definitively equate it to the CMB, as per my Big Bang example. The universe started out as a hot opaque soup of protons and electrons. All the CMB gives us is a rough indication of the average velocity of our bit of that soup when it cooled.
Think of it in terms of energy: as photons propagate through an expanding space, their wavelengths increase, i.e. they lose energy.
But only from the point of view of someone in their path. Imagining a massive object instead (since things get weird if you start about photons' points of view), from its point of view it doesn't lose energy, and from the point of view of someone behind it it will gain energy.
If you take an entire system and get it moving through space at 0.5c relative to the CMB, all the same laws still apply and the same slowing-due-to-expansion will still happen to the same magnitude, and the system will evolve in the same way, won't it?
It seems to me that objects don't slow towards a particular rest frame; they slow towards the rest frames of all observers ahead of them. And they accelerate away from the rest frames of all observers behind them.
Going back a bit:
Any free body in motion relative to that reference frame will eventually slow down and come to rest with respect to the CMB frame.
Wouldn't that violate conservation of energy (which is preserved within a rest frame)?
It seems to me that the CMB rest frame is still no more special than any other.
For all we know, when the universe first popped into existence, something caused the cloud of gas that became our observable universe to get kicked out in a random direction. Then what we see as our CMB is actually moving relative to some other CMB in some other inaccessible part of the universe. It's all relative.
To put it another way, if we think of a "grid" of space under our feet (as we sit still relative to the CMB), and that grid is expanding, it doesn't matter whether it's also sliding in a particular direction at a 0.1c, 0.5c, or 0.999c.
Only Kirk is still kicking
Well, yeah, if you mean "out of Kirk and the ones who have died."
Walter Koenig, George Takei, and Nichelle Nichols are all still alive.
That doesn't sound right to me.
a photon moving in an expanding universe redshifts
Only from the point of view of an observer somewhere in its future light cone. To the person who fired the photon, or anyone else in the past light cone, it would blueshift (not that they can detect it any more).
Or to put in another way, if two photons are travelling in opposite directions, expansion will redshift them both, according to anyone who might detect either of them. But that means their momentums have changed by opposite amounts, so they can't both have been "slowed" (not the right word when you're talking about light, but it'll do, and the same applies to massive objects as well) towards the same rest frame.
Linking Without Permission Violates Copyright, Rules EU Court
Eh, not quite, as far as I can tell. Linking to files which already violate copyright themselves has now been ruled to be copyright violation.
Linking to a BBC news article or a legitimately copyrighted and published YouTube video aren't going to be considered copyright violations.
That page you linked to with the photo is also copyrighted though, just by existing. What's to stop the owner of the target link from suing over that copyright?
It sounds to me like the ruling is about linking to material which is already in violation of copyright - not about linking to copyrighted material.
Someone posts a link to your copyrighted photo on your server? Not a problem (well, possibly, but not in the light of this ruling).
Someone takes your photo, publishes it elsewhere (in violation of copyright), then someone else links to that image? That's what this covers, as far as I can tell.
Yes, but this ruling only affects links to data which is already in violation of copyright.
Well, there is; particles don't just change direction, either in space or time, apropos of nothing.
That means time can do more than go to and fro. So the question becomes, what does the unreal part of time (the Y co-ordinate) do, where does that piece of time go?
Learn about Lorentz transformations.
You have a degree in baloney!
Your review of A Brief History of Time must have been fun. Or what about Fabric of the Cosmos? It doesn't touch on textile manufacture even once!
It's not actually special, though, is it? Things will slow down because they'll be hit by higher energy photons from one side than the other unless they're at rest (on average) with the CMB frame - is that what you were getting at?
This is an effect due to cosmic expansion
If the universe stopped expanding tomorrow, wouldn't it still be the case?
Well... kinda. Not everyone's arrow of time has to point in exactly the same direction. It doesn't seem possible for any two arrows to be more than 90 degrees apart, though.
Why Intel Kaby Lake and AMD Zen Will Only Be Optimized On Windows 10
Do you mean "only Windows 10 and not any other Windows version" or do you mean "only on Windows 10 and no other OS"?
In any case, the wording is a bit weird. One doesn't optimise a processor. Better would be:
Only Windows 10 will be optimized for Intel Kaby Lake and AMD Zen
All I ever see you do is blither.
Jesus Christ, that article's written in worse English than anything I've ever seen on Slashdot.
They added that when investigators they tried to find out what they could about Yearwood, discovered the post and he was arrested the very next day.
Okay, skipping the terrible English, if investigators were "trying to find out what they could," would this not include, y'know, checking for outstanding warrants the old-fashioned way? In other words, is it just remotely possible that his Facebook photo had nothing whatsoever to do with him getting found out?
Well, yes, and in the case of things like "drone" it's not too bothersome, since alternatives and clarifications are readily available.
I still think it's worth fighting for "begs the question," though, since a) accepting defeat means losing the useful original meaning and b) it doesn't actually mean, once you take the individual words, what it is being used to mean, which is "raises the question." Begging is in no sense related to raising.
I'm going to start using "begets the question" just to confuse people even further.