2-inch reel-to-reel analog tape is THE BEST recording medium money can buy, hands down, period. Granted, it's stll 5 figures for a well-used Ampex, but i dare somebody to try and argue with me on this:P The limitations of vinyl that you point out are all imposed by the physical pickup system; a really good tape head will have no problem picking up 50kHz harmonic. It's not even that tape is inherently superior, it's just that with that much sheer space, you can store a LOT of audio information. And yes, musicans and audiophiles
While i'm at it, the high-res DA formats you mention are all fine and dandy, but IIRC most studio masters these days are ADAT (I could be wrong, it's been a few years since ive been in a studio), which at the best offers 20-bit/48kHz, 20-20,000Hz response. Better than CD, but half SACD/ADVD, with no way whatsoever to recover the lost data. Are there any multitrack professional-level 24/96 recorders, or are we going to be seeing an upswing in analog recorder sales?
Negative ion generators force high-voltage electricity to one or more needlepoints. Electricity is simply electrons in motion and since electrons repel one another, when they reach the needlepoint, they jump off and attach themselves to the molecules in the air forming negative ions.
Only very cheap, low-voltage filters use needle points. Points allow the minimum amount of current to spill out and ionize the particles, but the area of ionization is a rather small sphere around the needle. Much better is to blast more voltage, say a few thousand, across a flat plate, with a grid collector plate; the flat plate ionizes a lot more particles than a needle and the collector has the most area to catch the crap. But that's more sophisticated, and requires a much beefire powersupply, so it's a lot more $$$ tha the cheapo $100 wal-mart ionic filters.
Having a fan means you can clean a much larger volume of air.
MORE air yes, but it's not going to be nearly so clean. Longwinded explantion that goes into theory follows: Ionic filters have a theoretical 100% efficiency for all particle sizes. How these ionic air filters work is an excercise left to the reader (apply - charge to incoming particles with a -1,000V grid, place a +1000V grid close by, all the ionized - charged particles stick to the + grid); there are scientific instruments to select a very specific size of dust particle that work on the same principle. Instead of two charged plates, they use a rod and sleeve electrode system with + in the center, and they have a very small exit slit at the bottom; the voltage across the rods is very carefully controlled along with the carrier gas flow rate (the dust has to be in some medium), and only one very specific size comes out the slit at the botton (+/- 1 nm). (TSI 3080 Electrostatic Classifier)
The theoretical equation for this instrument describes the arc taken between the two electrodes for a given size particle in a given carrier gas at a given flowrate and voltage difference. The carrier flowrate is absolutely critical, a few tenths of a percent deviation will throw your size off by a few *tens* of percent. Assuming these ionic filters are going for 100% efficiency, and they aren't running some insane delta-V like -5000/+15,000, they need a fairly low flow rate to allow all the particles time to drift over to the collector (small particles won't move very fast through dense air in a relatively low electrical field - c'mon people, i know it's early, but think about it - smoke diffuses, water droplets from a spray bottle drops from the air a lot faster) - so to make my point finally, the Ionic Breeze uses the electrostatic air flow, which is actually probably a lot better than a fan-driven filter. The fanned filters can clean more air, but they're going to leave a lot of the smaller crap untouched...I actually wouldn't be surprised if a HEPA filter was actually more effective than a cheap ionic filter.
ULPA (Ultra-Low Penetrating Air) filters are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude more effecient than HEPA (High-Efficency Particulate Arresting) air filters; ULPA is rated to trap 99.999% of particles at 0.12 micron while HEPA filters only catch 99.99% at.3 microns. OF course, for most airborne dust and bacteria, the difference is negligible, since they're in the single-to-tens-of micron size ranges - but ULPA is clearly the superior choice, and not much more costly than HEPA at all. Incidentally, you might want to consider ULPA filters if you make IV infusions - a lot of viruses are small enough to only be trapped in ULPA filters IIRC.
...last I heard, the development of a new drug costs billions of dollars. Now, it's all fine and dandy to get on your moral high horse and say that "no cure is better than an expensive cure", but at the end of the day, the money to create the drugs has to come from somewhere. So if you really believe what you're saying, I see one option - see if a VC or banker will float you a loan based on the premise that "I won't be paying you back the $1,378,422,596.83 it took to research and design the drug because it just isn't important, don't you see that poor people need these drugs more than you need your money back?" If you do find somebody who'll do that, let me know, I could use some free money too..
Not that pharmcos won't do some pretty low things, but really, with the expenses we're talking about, basic economics can explain a whole lot of it.
Heh, and how many files did you have available for p2p? No caps here unless you're sharing a lot of shit - and that's not punitive as much as protective; OOL's upstreams are getting clogged with kazaa/gnutella/morpheus/&c.
Hmm...the digital features on our box go out a lot, and it's hung up a couple of times, but we've only actually lost TV maybe twice. Of course, being in the controlled environs of long island probably helps.
Haha, you don't watch much TV, do you? Stoopid Fast is from the OOL ad with Latrell Spreewell - he reads the line and then is all "No way man, I'm nt saying that; can't I just say it's the fastest and always on?" Director goes "OK, if you want...but can you just say 'dialup is whack'?" Google for "OOL ad Spreewell" - it's already got a bit of a cult following.
I'm on eastern Long Island (the Hamptons). SpeakEasy's NYC speedtest page just gave me 7280 down/919 up; 6492/919 for Boston. other tests give 3100/(nt) from San Antionio, 2400/(nt) from LA. All on a 10mb down, 1mb up theoretical. In the real world, I find sustained 800kBytes/sec is not uncommon from the Aleron SourceForge mirror. "I use Optimum Online because it's STOOPID FAST!"
I first noticed it when I got an insta-migraine 30 minutes into a bootleg of the perfect storm - there's a barely perceptible flicker from the 24fps of film going to 30fps of video; it's not enough to be noticeable, but it causes me all sorts of problems and aftereffects (like if i walk around in the moonlight afterwards, the brightness level "pulsates" for a good 15 minutes). i imagine this will be a lot more severe, but still, the existing problems have already turned me off to videotaped bootlegs.
Final rendering, however, is still done in software
Erm, then why does SGI get all hot and bothered over the ability to add more hardware pipelines with G-Bricks? I think it's more that video cards are designed from the standpoint that you have to render in realtime, and your quality is what is variable, while SGIs are set up to render photorealistically, with time the variable. And I remember some older article about the new video cards being potentially great for rendering, but having huge hangups in putting the rendered frame back into the system, since they're designed for a huge throughput from RAM to GPU to monitor, not back to RAM. Or something, I'm just shooting from the hip here.
Dark Helmet - "What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?" Col Sandurz - "Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now." Dark Helmet - "What happened to then?" Col Sandurz - "We passed then?" Dark Helmet - "When?" Col Sandurz - "Just now. We're at now, now." Dark Helmet - "Go back to then." Col Sandurz - "When?" Dark Helmet - "Now." Col Sandurz - "Now?" Dark Helmet - "Now." Col Sandurz - "I can't." Dark Helmet - "Why?" Col Sandurz - "We missed it." Dark Helmet - "When?" Col Sandurz - "Just now." Dark Helmet - "When will then be now?" Col Sandurz - "Soon."
That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm reading the first part as a rehash of my rant with "murderer" in place of "rapist" - but that has nothing to do with me, I've never killed anybody. Beaten to within an inch of their life yes (throw out of court when it came out he was abusing his 11-year old girl), but killed, never. Still, I can *conceive* of a situation where killing would be understandable and justified, but not rape. And this is a total waste of my time at 1:54 am, you're too chickenshit to post under a real name, no reason to expect a reply.
Incidentally, why the insane venom for me? Are you a rapist, or just a retard? I hope your friend died a horrible grisly death, have a great day:D
Eh, I got enough karma, I'll bite. Theft, assault, embezzlement, drug crimes, so on and so forth, maybe even murder, do deserve a fitting, lesser punishment...but we go too kindly on rapists as is already.
Rape is a totally different level of crime than anything short of killing somebody, and even when you kill them you aren't stuck on that same pure brutal desire to show that you can dominate somebody and do whatever you want to them, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. I think a framing hammer to the testicles and glans would be a more fitting punishment - followed by hanging, drawing, and quartering. In the grand olde english fashion, with the entrails and the blood and the horrible horrible suffering...mmmm, let those fuckers swing. (disclaimer: very close friend was raped about a year ago)
Our experience of 'moving forward in time' is illusory.
I hate to make a straight-up pronouncement, but that's just dead wrong - for creating static quantum particles (i.e. atomic orbitals) you use the time-independent Schrodinger equation; but for evolving systems such as chemical reactions, there is the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, which adds some differentials to take into account delta-T. That's about all I know about that - college PChem courses avoid the t-dependent equation, the math is just too messy.
Otherwise that's a pretty neat idea; the Universe as a composite wavefuntiuon that varies its collapse depending on the observer. I like it, now I just need to brush up on collapsing wavefunctions...
In a nutshell, one many-universe theory that does deal with a Probablity Axis as it were (ty DA): Everything in the universe is described by a mathematical wavefunction. Until directly observed, the waveform is in an indeterminate state, i.e. the object is existing in all possible states and outcomes. Once you make a decision to observe the object, the waveform collapses down to a precise function that tells you the state of the object. (Look up Schrodinger's Cat for an example) The collapse of a waveform is a chaotic process, but there are theories floating around that when the waveform does collapse, it spawns a number of universes exactly equal to the possible outcomes, with exactly one outcome in each universe. Basically, every obersvation/manipulation/decision/event spawns Universes with every possible outcome. There was an old TNG episode about that...
..so I think I'm qualified to say you're half-right. Heisenberg's principle states "It is impossible to specify simultaneously, with arbitrary precision, both the momentum and position of a particle." (P.W. Atkins, Physical Chemistry 6th Ed., Oxford Press 1998, p. 306).
But...the Principle doesn't just apply to particles, it applies to any set of complimentary obseravbles. Those are any pair of observable values, which are defined in terms of mathematical operrators (e.g. momentum and position, but could be anything) that do *not* commute, i.e. the order in which they are calculated matters: Op1(psi) * Op2(psi) != Op2(psi) * Op1(psi). (Ibid., p. 308) This applies for a single particle; it's a fairly trivial excercise, which I'm leaving to the reader, to set up a system of equations for more than one particle where the non-commuting operators "cancel out" and you can violate the Principle.
A general case of this (eliminating non-commutative operators) is actually a fairly common question on PhysChem tests - you need a basic mastery of the math involved, and that sort of setup is a very good way to check that. just my educated $0.02.
..is by far the best scientific rag out there. Yeah, it's pricey ($120/yr, includes AAAS membership and lots of other goodies), and all the articles are either papers (it's the biggest place to get published, sort of like having a solo show at the Met or something) or written by scientists for scientists...but it's all solid, real, peer-reviewed bleeding-edge research and theory, all in all VERY worth the price.
The feds will get an even bigger chuckle while you rot in jail for contempt Depending what's on my drive (or more accurately what they want to find on the drive), I might rather just sit in jail on a contempt charge. But that's just me.
I don't know about all the rest of you, but my sensitive data is all kept on a spare drive, packed into 3-DES/RC6/Blowfish (depends on my mood) archives which are then stored on convenient 4.37-GB AES-encrypted disk images (thanks apple!). Give it your best shot, Herr Asscrack.
...we do have a very good grasp on the fundamental quantum behavior of the universe. In fact, we can predict both the location and momentum of any particle to any precision we choose; we just can't measure them that way. For planets your argument sort of falls over though, since the uncertainties would be many many orders of magnitude smaller than anything we could measure, or probably indeed the fundamental physical scale of the universe. Anyway, my point is while you're right for classical "Newtonian" physics, which are just an approximation, but we could (if we wanted to spend the computational time) figure out the exact probability of the planets obeying Keplers laws, or spiralling into the sun, or vanishing and blinking into reexistence halfway across the galactic disk (according to quantum physics, anything is possible, just extremely unlikely). but we do reach a point where anything that "les beyond" is outside the bounds of this universe.
Three Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
OK, I'm sorry, I've never seen the big Four-Oh...
You're missing the point completely.
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
People who volunteered to be in an army should face the consequences when their commanders think they should start playing cowboys and indians in some desert. Why should I support those people?
I'm sure a significant percentage signed on pre-9/11; they didn't expect this, and they are facing the consequences of their commanders' actions, but that doesn't mean they should bear the blame.
Now, tell me, why should I support these 'freedom fighters' in killing innocent people?
Because you aren't being asked to suppport them in killing civilians; you're being asked for support by showing some sympathy for them, the pawns in this game, and demanding an immedate end to hostilities and their safe withdrawal.
Personal attacks are wrong, but I need to rant...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
FUCK YOU TY. fuck you and the horse you rode in on, up and down the street, with a gigantic spiked dildo, in ways that would make the most twisted members of NAMBLA cringe.
It's people like you that give anti-war protesters a bad name, by blaming the soldiers for the actions of the leaders. No, the troops aren't entirely blameless, but as long as they fight fairly (unlike, say, My Lai), it's just outright mean-spirited and unfair to accuse them of being as bad as their commanders. Of course, I doubt you'll even comprehend this; you seem to be of the mindset that "anybody who joins the Army voluntarily is obviously gung-ho about supporting American oligarchical interests throughout the world and is automatically bad;" I expect you'll be near the front of the line to spit on the boys when they come back, just like the fuckwads did to my dad after 'Nam. Hell, even the US news sources that have been interviewing the troops are getting some interesting results - a young Lt. (West Point 02 - how's that for a post-graduation job?) was asked if he was "psyched" to roll, and after a few second pause, said "i'm...READY to go." And of course the reporter tore into him, "what was that hesitation? are you not excited that things are getting underway"..."Pause, sir? I said I was ready to do what's needed of me." They don't seem screamingly gung-ho for war, but their job is not to question. Yep, "i was only doinng my duty" has been used to cover many many atrocities in history, but I don't think we're going in to commit genocide or some other real atrocities.
What offends me so much about people like you is that you're crossing the line between disliking the government, and disliking your country. To those who have reasonable objections to military action, while wishing safety on our soliders, I say good job, keep it up, fight the power. To people like you, who seem hellbent on labeling every last individual with any tiny contact with this affair a war criminal, I say you don't deserve that navy blue passport. Your brother and many before him have willingly risked their lives to ensure that you have the freedom to accuse them of being criminals against humantity (not that this particular action is needed, at least for that), and you seem to almost want to see him shot. All I have left to say is that's really sad man, when you let your blood tie to who should be one of the most important people in the world to you be tainted and even spoiled by your petty political views. Asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
2-inch reel-to-reel analog tape is THE BEST recording medium money can buy, hands down, period. Granted, it's stll 5 figures for a well-used Ampex, but i dare somebody to try and argue with me on this :P
The limitations of vinyl that you point out are all imposed by the physical pickup system; a really good tape head will have no problem picking up 50kHz harmonic. It's not even that tape is inherently superior, it's just that with that much sheer space, you can store a LOT of audio information. And yes, musicans and audiophiles
While i'm at it, the high-res DA formats you mention are all fine and dandy, but IIRC most studio masters these days are ADAT (I could be wrong, it's been a few years since ive been in a studio), which at the best offers 20-bit/48kHz, 20-20,000Hz response. Better than CD, but half SACD/ADVD, with no way whatsoever to recover the lost data. Are there any multitrack professional-level 24/96 recorders, or are we going to be seeing an upswing in analog recorder sales?
Negative ion generators force high-voltage electricity to one or more needlepoints. Electricity is simply electrons in motion and since electrons repel one another, when they reach the needlepoint, they jump off and attach themselves to the molecules in the air forming negative ions.
Only very cheap, low-voltage filters use needle points. Points allow the minimum amount of current to spill out and ionize the particles, but the area of ionization is a rather small sphere around the needle. Much better is to blast more voltage, say a few thousand, across a flat plate, with a grid collector plate; the flat plate ionizes a lot more particles than a needle and the collector has the most area to catch the crap. But that's more sophisticated, and requires a much beefire powersupply, so it's a lot more $$$ tha the cheapo $100 wal-mart ionic filters.
Having a fan means you can clean a much larger volume of air.
MORE air yes, but it's not going to be nearly so clean. Longwinded explantion that goes into theory follows:
Ionic filters have a theoretical 100% efficiency for all particle sizes. How these ionic air filters work is an excercise left to the reader (apply - charge to incoming particles with a -1,000V grid, place a +1000V grid close by, all the ionized - charged particles stick to the + grid); there are scientific instruments to select a very specific size of dust particle that work on the same principle. Instead of two charged plates, they use a rod and sleeve electrode system with + in the center, and they have a very small exit slit at the bottom; the voltage across the rods is very carefully controlled along with the carrier gas flow rate (the dust has to be in some medium), and only one very specific size comes out the slit at the botton (+/- 1 nm). (TSI 3080 Electrostatic Classifier)
The theoretical equation for this instrument describes the arc taken between the two electrodes for a given size particle in a given carrier gas at a given flowrate and voltage difference. The carrier flowrate is absolutely critical, a few tenths of a percent deviation will throw your size off by a few *tens* of percent. Assuming these ionic filters are going for 100% efficiency, and they aren't running some insane delta-V like -5000/+15,000, they need a fairly low flow rate to allow all the particles time to drift over to the collector (small particles won't move very fast through dense air in a relatively low electrical field - c'mon people, i know it's early, but think about it - smoke diffuses, water droplets from a spray bottle drops from the air a lot faster) - so to make my point finally, the Ionic Breeze uses the electrostatic air flow, which is actually probably a lot better than a fan-driven filter. The fanned filters can clean more air, but they're going to leave a lot of the smaller crap untouched...I actually wouldn't be surprised if a HEPA filter was actually more effective than a cheap ionic filter.
ULPA (Ultra-Low Penetrating Air) filters are 1 to 2 orders of magnitude more effecient than HEPA (High-Efficency Particulate Arresting) air filters; ULPA is rated to trap 99.999% of particles at 0.12 micron while HEPA filters only catch 99.99% at .3 microns. OF course, for most airborne dust and bacteria, the difference is negligible, since they're in the single-to-tens-of micron size ranges - but ULPA is clearly the superior choice, and not much more costly than HEPA at all. Incidentally, you might want to consider ULPA filters if you make IV infusions - a lot of viruses are small enough to only be trapped in ULPA filters IIRC.
...last I heard, the development of a new drug costs billions of dollars. Now, it's all fine and dandy to get on your moral high horse and say that "no cure is better than an expensive cure", but at the end of the day, the money to create the drugs has to come from somewhere. So if you really believe what you're saying, I see one option - see if a VC or banker will float you a loan based on the premise that "I won't be paying you back the $1,378,422,596.83 it took to research and design the drug because it just isn't important, don't you see that poor people need these drugs more than you need your money back?" If you do find somebody who'll do that, let me know, I could use some free money too..
Not that pharmcos won't do some pretty low things, but really, with the expenses we're talking about, basic economics can explain a whole lot of it.
Heh, and how many files did you have available for p2p? No caps here unless you're sharing a lot of shit - and that's not punitive as much as protective; OOL's upstreams are getting clogged with kazaa/gnutella/morpheus/&c.
Hmm...the digital features on our box go out a lot, and it's hung up a couple of times, but we've only actually lost TV maybe twice. Of course, being in the controlled environs of long island probably helps.
Haha, you don't watch much TV, do you? Stoopid Fast is from the OOL ad with Latrell Spreewell - he reads the line and then is all "No way man, I'm nt saying that; can't I just say it's the fastest and always on?" Director goes "OK, if you want...but can you just say 'dialup is whack'?" Google for "OOL ad Spreewell" - it's already got a bit of a cult following.
I'm on eastern Long Island (the Hamptons). SpeakEasy's NYC speedtest page just gave me 7280 down/919 up; 6492/919 for Boston. other tests give 3100/(nt) from San Antionio, 2400/(nt) from LA. All on a 10mb down, 1mb up theoretical. In the real world, I find sustained 800kBytes/sec is not uncommon from the Aleron SourceForge mirror.
"I use Optimum Online because it's STOOPID FAST!"
I first noticed it when I got an insta-migraine 30 minutes into a bootleg of the perfect storm - there's a barely perceptible flicker from the 24fps of film going to 30fps of video; it's not enough to be noticeable, but it causes me all sorts of problems and aftereffects (like if i walk around in the moonlight afterwards, the brightness level "pulsates" for a good 15 minutes). i imagine this will be a lot more severe, but still, the existing problems have already turned me off to videotaped bootlegs.
no no no, it's "WHOOOOOOOOOOO? *ka-CHUNK*" :P
Final rendering, however, is still done in software
Erm, then why does SGI get all hot and bothered over the ability to add more hardware pipelines with G-Bricks? I think it's more that video cards are designed from the standpoint that you have to render in realtime, and your quality is what is variable, while SGIs are set up to render photorealistically, with time the variable. And I remember some older article about the new video cards being potentially great for rendering, but having huge hangups in putting the rendered frame back into the system, since they're designed for a huge throughput from RAM to GPU to monitor, not back to RAM. Or something, I'm just shooting from the hip here.
Dark Helmet - "What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?"
Col Sandurz - "Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now."
Dark Helmet - "What happened to then?"
Col Sandurz - "We passed then?"
Dark Helmet - "When?"
Col Sandurz - "Just now. We're at now, now."
Dark Helmet - "Go back to then."
Col Sandurz - "When?"
Dark Helmet - "Now."
Col Sandurz - "Now?"
Dark Helmet - "Now."
Col Sandurz - "I can't."
Dark Helmet - "Why?"
Col Sandurz - "We missed it."
Dark Helmet - "When?"
Col Sandurz - "Just now."
Dark Helmet - "When will then be now?"
Col Sandurz - "Soon."
That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm reading the first part as a rehash of my rant with "murderer" in place of "rapist" - but that has nothing to do with me, I've never killed anybody.
:D
Beaten to within an inch of their life yes (throw out of court when it came out he was abusing his 11-year old girl), but killed, never. Still, I can *conceive* of a situation where killing would be understandable and justified, but not rape. And this is a total waste of my time at 1:54 am, you're too chickenshit to post under a real name, no reason to expect a reply.
Incidentally, why the insane venom for me? Are you a rapist, or just a retard?
I hope your friend died a horrible grisly death, have a great day
Eh, I got enough karma, I'll bite.
Theft, assault, embezzlement, drug crimes, so on and so forth, maybe even murder, do deserve a fitting, lesser punishment...but we go too kindly on rapists as is already.
Rape is a totally different level of crime than anything short of killing somebody, and even when you kill them you aren't stuck on that same pure brutal desire to show that you can dominate somebody and do whatever you want to them, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. I think a framing hammer to the testicles and glans would be a more fitting punishment - followed by hanging, drawing, and quartering. In the grand olde english fashion, with the entrails and the blood and the horrible horrible suffering...mmmm, let those fuckers swing. (disclaimer: very close friend was raped about a year ago)
Our experience of 'moving forward in time' is illusory.
I hate to make a straight-up pronouncement, but that's just dead wrong - for creating static quantum particles (i.e. atomic orbitals) you use the time-independent Schrodinger equation; but for evolving systems such as chemical reactions, there is the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, which adds some differentials to take into account delta-T. That's about all I know about that - college PChem courses avoid the t-dependent equation, the math is just too messy.
Otherwise that's a pretty neat idea; the Universe as a composite wavefuntiuon that varies its collapse depending on the observer. I like it, now I just need to brush up on collapsing wavefunctions...
In a nutshell, one many-universe theory that does deal with a Probablity Axis as it were (ty DA): Everything in the universe is described by a mathematical wavefunction. Until directly observed, the waveform is in an indeterminate state, i.e. the object is existing in all possible states and outcomes. Once you make a decision to observe the object, the waveform collapses down to a precise function that tells you the state of the object. (Look up Schrodinger's Cat for an example) The collapse of a waveform is a chaotic process, but there are theories floating around that when the waveform does collapse, it spawns a number of universes exactly equal to the possible outcomes, with exactly one outcome in each universe. Basically, every obersvation/manipulation/decision/event spawns Universes with every possible outcome. There was an old TNG episode about that...
..so I think I'm qualified to say you're half-right. Heisenberg's principle states "It is impossible to specify simultaneously, with arbitrary precision, both the momentum and position of a particle." (P.W. Atkins, Physical Chemistry 6th Ed., Oxford Press 1998, p. 306).
But...the Principle doesn't just apply to particles, it applies to any set of complimentary obseravbles. Those are any pair of observable values, which are defined in terms of mathematical operrators (e.g. momentum and position, but could be anything) that do *not* commute, i.e. the order in which they are calculated matters: Op1(psi) * Op2(psi) != Op2(psi) * Op1(psi). (Ibid., p. 308) This applies for a single particle; it's a fairly trivial excercise, which I'm leaving to the reader, to set up a system of equations for more than one particle where the non-commuting operators "cancel out" and you can violate the Principle.
A general case of this (eliminating non-commutative operators) is actually a fairly common question on PhysChem tests - you need a basic mastery of the math involved, and that sort of setup is a very good way to check that. just my educated $0.02.
..is by far the best scientific rag out there. Yeah, it's pricey ($120/yr, includes AAAS membership and lots of other goodies), and all the articles are either papers (it's the biggest place to get published, sort of like having a solo show at the Met or something) or written by scientists for scientists...but it's all solid, real, peer-reviewed bleeding-edge research and theory, all in all VERY worth the price.
The feds will get an even bigger chuckle while you rot in jail for contempt
Depending what's on my drive (or more accurately what they want to find on the drive), I might rather just sit in jail on a contempt charge. But that's just me.
I don't know about all the rest of you, but my sensitive data is all kept on a spare drive, packed into 3-DES/RC6/Blowfish (depends on my mood) archives which are then stored on convenient 4.37-GB AES-encrypted disk images (thanks apple!).
Give it your best shot, Herr Asscrack.
...we do have a very good grasp on the fundamental quantum behavior of the universe. In fact, we can predict both the location and momentum of any particle to any precision we choose; we just can't measure them that way. For planets your argument sort of falls over though, since the uncertainties would be many many orders of magnitude smaller than anything we could measure, or probably indeed the fundamental physical scale of the universe. Anyway, my point is while you're right for classical "Newtonian" physics, which are just an approximation, but we could (if we wanted to spend the computational time) figure out the exact probability of the planets obeying Keplers laws, or spiralling into the sun, or vanishing and blinking into reexistence halfway across the galactic disk (according to quantum physics, anything is possible, just extremely unlikely). but we do reach a point where anything that "les beyond" is outside the bounds of this universe.
OK, I'm sorry, I've never seen the big Four-Oh...
People who volunteered to be in an army should face the consequences when their commanders think they should start playing cowboys and indians in some desert. Why should I support those people?
I'm sure a significant percentage signed on pre-9/11; they didn't expect this, and they are facing the consequences of their commanders' actions, but that doesn't mean they should bear the blame.
Now, tell me, why should I support these 'freedom fighters' in killing innocent people?
Because you aren't being asked to suppport them in killing civilians; you're being asked for support by showing some sympathy for them, the pawns in this game, and demanding an immedate end to hostilities and their safe withdrawal.
FUCK YOU TY. fuck you and the horse you rode in on, up and down the street, with a gigantic spiked dildo, in ways that would make the most twisted members of NAMBLA cringe.
It's people like you that give anti-war protesters a bad name, by blaming the soldiers for the actions of the leaders. No, the troops aren't entirely blameless, but as long as they fight fairly (unlike, say, My Lai), it's just outright mean-spirited and unfair to accuse them of being as bad as their commanders. Of course, I doubt you'll even comprehend this; you seem to be of the mindset that "anybody who joins the Army voluntarily is obviously gung-ho about supporting American oligarchical interests throughout the world and is automatically bad;" I expect you'll be near the front of the line to spit on the boys when they come back, just like the fuckwads did to my dad after 'Nam. Hell, even the US news sources that have been interviewing the troops are getting some interesting results - a young Lt. (West Point 02 - how's that for a post-graduation job?) was asked if he was "psyched" to roll, and after a few second pause, said "i'm...READY to go." And of course the reporter tore into him, "what was that hesitation? are you not excited that things are getting underway"..."Pause, sir? I said I was ready to do what's needed of me." They don't seem screamingly gung-ho for war, but their job is not to question. Yep, "i was only doinng my duty" has been used to cover many many atrocities in history, but I don't think we're going in to commit genocide or some other real atrocities.
What offends me so much about people like you is that you're crossing the line between disliking the government, and disliking your country. To those who have reasonable objections to military action, while wishing safety on our soliders, I say good job, keep it up, fight the power. To people like you, who seem hellbent on labeling every last individual with any tiny contact with this affair a war criminal, I say you don't deserve that navy blue passport. Your brother and many before him have willingly risked their lives to ensure that you have the freedom to accuse them of being criminals against humantity (not that this particular action is needed, at least for that), and you seem to almost want to see him shot. All I have left to say is that's really sad man, when you let your blood tie to who should be one of the most important people in the world to you be tainted and even spoiled by your petty political views. Asshole.