There are a ton of relatively affluent people here on Slashdot. It certainly wouldn't hurt you to allocate a small amount of money to EFF annually, and we know their results.
This.
Too many posts here are either "you should be willing to die for your rights, you sniveling cowards!", or "there's nothing we can do, nothing we should try, let's all go eat worms"...
Here's a simple, painless way to support the cause of protecting our rights. And as the court case shows, it is effective, if at nothing else than generating publicity regarding the crimes being committed by government on a daily basis.
Anyone who thinks what the NSA is doing is wrong should go and donate today.
The problem with this is that what is that even going to accomplish?... It isn't like the court is going to make somebody go to jail if the law is broken. If YOU spy on somebody illegally you'll get locked up for it. If the government does it, well, I guess the rules just must not have been clear enough.
And this is one reason why they win. A large of the people who are even aware of what the NSA is doing, and who think it is wrong just don't think there is any way to change the system. The people in power have convinced the masses that either (1) what they are doing is right, or (2) you can't change it.
I'd suspect: - 10% of people approve of what the NSA is doing is fine cause "I haven't done anything wrong" and "It'll help catch dem dirty terrerist's!". - 50% just don't care, they just want to collect their paycheck and buy the latest shiny iThing they are told to purchase. - 30% appear to care, but don't think there is any way for the system to change. - 9.999999% care and are willing to act, but aren't a large enough group / organized enough to effect any change. -.0000001% care and are in a position to act, but then have to flee the country and go live in Russia.
What is meant here however is that there is no limit to how fast space itself can expand. So say we have two ends of a ruler 1 meter apart. After a while, space itself would expand meaning that the ruler will now be longer than what it was.
No...almost right, but not quite.
Read up on it in on wikipedia, and especially the section on the effect of expansion at small scales. For the most direct answer, see here
The space between your atoms is not getting larger over time. As space expands, nucleic forces prevents the atoms from being moved further apart. It is possible that the expansion will one day become fast enough to overcome the nucleic force...resulting in all matter being ripped apart, and all sorts of other weird badness....but it's not like matter is becoming larger day to day.
Mass farther away from each other results in less gravity attraction on each other. So if there was enough mass to cause a big crunch then right now, everything would be contracting.
So I guess if I throw a baseball up in the air (or in a vacuum if you must), it'll just fly away into space? After all, what's going to slow it down? As it get's further away, there is less gravity....
stars and planets right now are flying around at faster than the speed of light
No, they aren't. Space is expanding at a rate greater than c. Objects are not moving "through" space at a space greater than c.
Imagine 2 dots on a balloon as you blow it up. Those dots increase in distance from each other. The faster you inflate it, the faster they "move" away from each other.
Same thing here, only in 3 dimensions, and the "balloon" is being inflated at a faster and faster rate.
On another note, this is your 3rd or 4th post describing the article and science as "bullshit". Why do you continue to belittle a subject that you obviously know very little about?
Yes, but even putting dark energy aside for the moment, based on current observations we believe that some galaxies will never be reachable.
i.e. regardless of the why, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. There is no evidence that this is going to stop, and some evidence that it will not.
1) Yes, they are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light. This is well established.
2) As long as the photons reach a region of space receding at less than the speed of light, we can see these galaxies. Good info here
3) "And they fail to mention that they only way we're traveling through space is faster than light, some sort of weird quantum thing, by bending space, or via wormholes" None of which have been shown to exist. And there's some evidence that none of these options can exist.
Let's ignore all relativity and use kinematic equations
At which point the rest of your post becomes pointless.
As you approach the speed of light, it takes more and more energy to go faster (actually this depends on the frame of reference). Regardless, you can continue to apply 1G of acceleration indefinitely, but not exceed the speed of light.
The 30 years or 80 years or whichever is ship time due to relativity, not observer time.
Not as far as the light is concerned. Photons do not experience time (due to time dilation). If you were able to travel at the speed of light (you can't), the entire future of the universe would pass by instantaneously (from your perspective).
IANAP (I Am Not A Physicist), but as I understand it, the information is sent instantaneously (teleported), but can only be "read" via the use of a measurement taken at the source location & sent (via classical channels) to the target.
i.e.: 2 entangled particles exist. One at A and one at B Measurement is take an A. This results in a change of state to both particles Unfortunately, due to quantum funkiness, the state at B cannot be determined without the measurement from A. Measurement is sent from A to B (via classical channels) B can then determine the state of their particle (which matches the state at A)
Please excuse any butchering of the science that may of occurred due to my ignorance:-)
Amazon's monopolistic stranglehold on distribution forces the price down which puts publishers out of business. This results in Amazon being the dominant publisher, working directly with authors. But it also allows Amazon to dictate to authors what they will pay, just as they did with the traditional publishers. This is not "free market", it is a monopoly no less than Microsoft was, and it's not good for consumer choice.
There significant problems with this comparison:
1) There is almost no barrier to entry to becoming an author. There is a huge barrier to entry to building an operating system. 2) Microsoft's evil was not in existing as a monopoly, it was in abusing that monopoly (operating systems) to gain control over new markets (browsers/internet). There are regulations which monopolies must follow. Microsoft didn't. 3) Amazon is not a monopoly. See Apple / Google Books. 4) "But it also allows Amazon to dictate to authors what they will pay". Suppliers cannot dictate prices. Producers and consumers dictate prices. If books are too cheap, nobody will write them. If books are too expensive, nobody will buy them. Amazon is trying to find the sweet spot that is the lowest price at which people will still write books people are willing to read. I don't find that malignant or evil.
when I buy a technical book in electronic form, I immediately print it out and put it in a three-ring binder, much easier to locate what I'm interested and flip back and forth between sections.... I print them out single-sided with wide margins.
Ha! I scribe mine onto the skins of dead panda bears. In Dodo bird blood! Take that, environment!
300GB * 8bits/byte * 1000Mb/Gb = 2,400,000 Mb total of data per month
Netflix HD streaming = 5 Mb/s
So....2,400,000Mb / 5Mb/s = 480,000s = 133.3 hours = 4.4 hours per day of TV minimum
You may want to consider going outside once in a while.
Of course there are entirely legitimate reasons for exceeding the cap. The last time I replaced my PC, my steam library install alone was almost 300GB (drive had died, couldn't transfer). Of course, I should probably consider that outside option as well....
Parent seems unable to distinguish between his own non-expert opinion and the opinion (true or not) of an expert with long history in the study of this subject matter.
Parent seems unable to distinguish between logical reasoning and an "argument from authority" fallacy.
The GP has pointed out valid concerns with the article.
"But Bob said so!" is not a valid counter-argument.
there is no way to stop criminals from committing crimes.
Exactly. There is no way to stop criminals from committing crimes.
The point of gun control is to reduce the number of (violent) crimes committed.
That being said, there is ample evidence that the most effective method to combat crime is to dump money into social programs: education, child-care, drug rehab, welfare, etc. Unfortunately, it seems that this solution is also an anathema for most Americans....which may somewhat explain the rates of violent crime & incarceration in the USA.
But if we extend this argument to other things, then you need to model the entire world.
I'm much happier seeing a door that never opens (i.e. you don't have the key, and never come across it), than arbitrary "oh, you can't get past those three piled up cars, even though they look easily climbable by anyone over the age of 6", or "no, chain link completely stops your 2000-pound vehicle"
Of the arbitrary boundaries I have seen, unopenable doors are the least annoying. Can you give a few examples of games (particularly first-person games) with boundary limits that are more natural than unopenable doors?
And in all of the examples you gave, that would make the Programmer a needlessly cruel and sadistic bastard.
Anyone creating such a simulation would know full well the "simulated" suffering he would inflict upon his "simulated beings" by running the simulation.
I'm not certain I understand your point (or perhaps I failed to describe mine sufficiently).
I see very little difference between the following things: - boycotting a corporation due to disliking the stance of the corporation on certain issues (e.g. oil companies & the environment, tech companies & Chinese factories, etc) - boycotting a corporation due the the particular stance of their CEO on certain issues.
For me to treat these differently requires me to treat a corporation like a person, which is something I adamantly refuse to do. Corporations are made of and lead by people. If they want to have personal opinions, fine...they should just be aware that publicizing an opinion may have consequences.
Yes, there were a few nutjobs on Twitter who were harassing Eich personally, which I do not agree with, but it appears that the major reason that Eich resigned was due to OKCupid's actions against Mozilla.
This is not a political discussion, it is an ethical one. I have no issue with "calling out" people who support a callous disregard for basic human equality.
Slashdot Mirror
This.
Too many posts here are either "you should be willing to die for your rights, you sniveling cowards!", or "there's nothing we can do, nothing we should try, let's all go eat worms"...
Here's a simple, painless way to support the cause of protecting our rights. And as the court case shows, it is effective, if at nothing else than generating publicity regarding the crimes being committed by government on a daily basis.
Anyone who thinks what the NSA is doing is wrong should go and donate today.
And this is one reason why they win. A large of the people who are even aware of what the NSA is doing, and who think it is wrong just don't think there is any way to change the system. The people in power have convinced the masses that either (1) what they are doing is right, or (2) you can't change it.
I'd suspect: .0000001% care and are in a position to act, but then have to flee the country and go live in Russia.
- 10% of people approve of what the NSA is doing is fine cause "I haven't done anything wrong" and "It'll help catch dem dirty terrerist's!".
- 50% just don't care, they just want to collect their paycheck and buy the latest shiny iThing they are told to purchase.
- 30% appear to care, but don't think there is any way for the system to change.
- 9.999999% care and are willing to act, but aren't a large enough group / organized enough to effect any change.
-
No...almost right, but not quite.
Read up on it in on wikipedia, and especially the section on the effect of expansion at small scales. For the most direct answer, see here
The space between your atoms is not getting larger over time. As space expands, nucleic forces prevents the atoms from being moved further apart. It is possible that the expansion will one day become fast enough to overcome the nucleic force...resulting in all matter being ripped apart, and all sorts of other weird badness....but it's not like matter is becoming larger day to day.
So I guess if I throw a baseball up in the air (or in a vacuum if you must), it'll just fly away into space? After all, what's going to slow it down? As it get's further away, there is less gravity....
See the problem with your argument?
No, they aren't. Space is expanding at a rate greater than c. Objects are not moving "through" space at a space greater than c.
Imagine 2 dots on a balloon as you blow it up. Those dots increase in distance from each other. The faster you inflate it, the faster they "move" away from each other.
Same thing here, only in 3 dimensions, and the "balloon" is being inflated at a faster and faster rate.
On another note, this is your 3rd or 4th post describing the article and science as "bullshit". Why do you continue to belittle a subject that you obviously know very little about?
I don't mean to pick nits, but if you were a massless particle, you would already be moving at the speed of light.
Yes, but even putting dark energy aside for the moment, based on current observations we believe that some galaxies will never be reachable.
i.e. regardless of the why, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. There is no evidence that this is going to stop, and some evidence that it will not.
Wrong on so many levels.
1) Yes, they are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light. This is well established.
2) As long as the photons reach a region of space receding at less than the speed of light, we can see these galaxies. Good info here
3) "And they fail to mention that they only way we're traveling through space is faster than light, some sort of weird quantum thing, by bending space, or via wormholes" None of which have been shown to exist. And there's some evidence that none of these options can exist.
At which point the rest of your post becomes pointless.
As you approach the speed of light, it takes more and more energy to go faster (actually this depends on the frame of reference). Regardless, you can continue to apply 1G of acceleration indefinitely, but not exceed the speed of light.
The 30 years or 80 years or whichever is ship time due to relativity, not observer time.
Not as far as the light is concerned. Photons do not experience time (due to time dilation). If you were able to travel at the speed of light (you can't), the entire future of the universe would pass by instantaneously (from your perspective).
Yeah sure, wait until you see the latest product of Google Labs:
Sharks with frickin' lasers attached to the top of their spacesuit!
IANAP (I Am Not A Physicist), but as I understand it, the information is sent instantaneously (teleported), but can only be "read" via the use of a measurement taken at the source location & sent (via classical channels) to the target.
i.e.:
2 entangled particles exist. One at A and one at B
Measurement is take an A. This results in a change of state to both particles
Unfortunately, due to quantum funkiness, the state at B cannot be determined without the measurement from A.
Measurement is sent from A to B (via classical channels)
B can then determine the state of their particle (which matches the state at A)
Please excuse any butchering of the science that may of occurred due to my ignorance :-)
Ha, I'm Canadian! We in the North laugh at your petty squabbles and selfish greed!
I wonder if it'll stop snowing soon?
Call my cynical, but I don't trust any studies from the University of Eastern...refrigerator!
There significant problems with this comparison:
1) There is almost no barrier to entry to becoming an author. There is a huge barrier to entry to building an operating system.
2) Microsoft's evil was not in existing as a monopoly, it was in abusing that monopoly (operating systems) to gain control over new markets (browsers/internet). There are regulations which monopolies must follow. Microsoft didn't.
3) Amazon is not a monopoly. See Apple / Google Books.
4) "But it also allows Amazon to dictate to authors what they will pay". Suppliers cannot dictate prices. Producers and consumers dictate prices. If books are too cheap, nobody will write them. If books are too expensive, nobody will buy them. Amazon is trying to find the sweet spot that is the lowest price at which people will still write books people are willing to read. I don't find that malignant or evil.
Ha! I scribe mine onto the skins of dead panda bears. In Dodo bird blood! Take that, environment!
Let's do some math:
300GB * 8bits/byte * 1000Mb/Gb = 2,400,000 Mb total of data per month
Netflix HD streaming = 5 Mb/s
So....2,400,000Mb / 5Mb/s = 480,000s = 133.3 hours = 4.4 hours per day of TV minimum
You may want to consider going outside once in a while.
Of course there are entirely legitimate reasons for exceeding the cap. The last time I replaced my PC, my steam library install alone was almost 300GB (drive had died, couldn't transfer). Of course, I should probably consider that outside option as well....
Parent seems unable to distinguish between logical reasoning and an "argument from authority" fallacy.
The GP has pointed out valid concerns with the article.
"But Bob said so!" is not a valid counter-argument.
Exactly. There is no way to stop criminals from committing crimes.
The point of gun control is to reduce the number of (violent) crimes committed.
That being said, there is ample evidence that the most effective method to combat crime is to dump money into social programs: education, child-care, drug rehab, welfare, etc. Unfortunately, it seems that this solution is also an anathema for most Americans....which may somewhat explain the rates of violent crime & incarceration in the USA.
Wow, that one data point you have for one year is certainly damning!
After all, everyone knows that climate is a simple system where if you feed more energy in, then you see output increase linearly.
Good thing you read the actual report and ensured that the summary was only speaking of Atlantic hurricanes in 2013.
You'd look like quite the idiot if you found out (just picking a random example), that the measurement was a study of hurricanes since 1980.
But if we extend this argument to other things, then you need to model the entire world.
I'm much happier seeing a door that never opens (i.e. you don't have the key, and never come across it), than arbitrary "oh, you can't get past those three piled up cars, even though they look easily climbable by anyone over the age of 6", or "no, chain link completely stops your 2000-pound vehicle"
Of the arbitrary boundaries I have seen, unopenable doors are the least annoying. Can you give a few examples of games (particularly first-person games) with boundary limits that are more natural than unopenable doors?
Hey Netflix, that's some awfully nice bandwidth ya got there....be a shame if anything happened to it....
And in all of the examples you gave, that would make the Programmer a needlessly cruel and sadistic bastard.
Anyone creating such a simulation would know full well the "simulated" suffering he would inflict upon his "simulated beings" by running the simulation.
I'll take a steaming cup of Java please....ba dum dum...
I'm here all week! Try the fish!
Hurrah! You've discovered philosophical skepticism!
The ancient Greeks would be proud.
I'm not certain I understand your point (or perhaps I failed to describe mine sufficiently).
I see very little difference between the following things:
- boycotting a corporation due to disliking the stance of the corporation on certain issues (e.g. oil companies & the environment, tech companies & Chinese factories, etc)
- boycotting a corporation due the the particular stance of their CEO on certain issues.
For me to treat these differently requires me to treat a corporation like a person, which is something I adamantly refuse to do. Corporations are made of and lead by people. If they want to have personal opinions, fine...they should just be aware that publicizing an opinion may have consequences.
Yes, there were a few nutjobs on Twitter who were harassing Eich personally, which I do not agree with, but it appears that the major reason that Eich resigned was due to OKCupid's actions against Mozilla.
This is not a political discussion, it is an ethical one. I have no issue with "calling out" people who support a callous disregard for basic human equality.