They most certainly do travel at other speeds! It may have been a while since I took a physics course, but as I recall, "c" is the speed of light in a vacuum.
That's because they keep getting absorbed by the atoms in the material and then re-emitted, which takes time (depending on things like the density of the material for instance). The actual photons always travel at c.
Neutrinos are generated in the reaction n -^gt; p + e + v where a free neutron decays to a proton, and electron and an anti-neutrino, and pretty much every reaction that takes place within the Sun's fusion cycle.
Re:Um, if it's a star it can't be dark matter....
on
"Dark Matter" Observed
·
· Score: 2
It could be any number of weird particles that come out of particle physicist's models - axions, technicolor particles, Higg's bosons and so on - although I'd say this was unlikely. Perhaps more likely are the supersymmetric partner particles of normal matter. If supersymmetry is true then every fermion has a supersymmetric boson partner and every boson has a supersymmetric fermion partner. So you get electrons and selectrons, quarks and squarks, W particles and winos and so on. All of the sparticles are a lot heavier than their normal counterparts which could be some of the dark matter.
But that's nothing to do with a centre is it? The sphere may have a centre but space doesn't, and even if you contract the universe back to the centre of the sphere you can still never say that space has any particular centre. And the centre of the sphere is nothing more than the initial singularity at t=0, which isn't really a centre of anything either.
Hmm, maybe you should go back and do some more physics...
that's funny you say photons have no rest mass because last time i checked no one had been able to slow a photon down to zero velocity (they might get close, but not zero),
You can't slow a photon down - they travel at c and no other speed. And this is because they have no rest mass, as has been born out by every experiment ever done involving photons! Amazing eh?
In the above all-sky map, radiation in the Earth's direction of motion appears blueshifted and hence hotter, while radiation on the opposite side of the sky is redshifted and colder. The map indicates that the Local Group moves at about 600 kilometers per second relative to this primordial radiation.
The difference between the two halves of the sky is due to the relative motion of the Local Group of galaxies, not some "centre of the universe" effect.
if the universe were to go into a big crunch we will be moving back toward the center.....
Not at all. Using the usual analogy think of a universe with 2 spacial and 1 time dimension, where the spatial dimensions are on the surface of a "balloon." As the universe expands (as in blowing the balloon up) things get further apart, but equally so at every point on the surface of the balloon - there is no "centre". Equally so for when it is contracting - it contracts everywhere equally and there is no centre of contraction on the surface.
Extrapolating from a 3-d sphere to a 4-d hypersphere, it's easy to see there doesn't have to be a centre in this case either. It's just a lot harder to visualise:)
the center of the univers is at the center of a super sphere.
What supersphere? Do you mean a 4-d spacetime hypersphere? I still don't think that the centre of that has any physical meaning unless you ascribe it as being the initial singularity at t=0 (which probably doesn't exist).
if we can find a glow at the most far out reach...farther than the farhtes Quasar...and that glow is equal eveywhere, then that is the center of the universe.
Are you talking about the microwave background radiation which is everywhere? That's all that's left of the afterglow of the Big Bang, the glow itself stopped after 300,000 years when the energy density of the Universe dropped low enough so that photons stopped interacting with matter so often.
Apart from that you make no sense. What does 4 dimensions have to do with the fact that the Universe is homogenous?
Seriously, even if no central point can be defined from a distance perspective (which I am perfectly willing to accept), there must still be a gravitational center - a location where the amount of matter, and the average of that matter's distance works out to be roughly equal in all directions.
That's the whole point of it being isotropic and homogenous - there is no single preferred point at which you can say "this is the centre". At any point you choose there is a (approximately) uniform distribution of matter in every direction. Sure there are local irregularities (galactic superclusters for instance), but on a large enough scale this uniformity seems to hold.
Of course, this is speculative, and as much as I'd like to see a unified theory of everything someday, I don't know that we'll ever get there. The thing I like about the cyclic Big Bang/Big Crunch idea is that it puts us on a timer! We don't have forever to solve all of the riddles of the universe... It's more like (Forever - 1).
Heh, well the latest theory to come out of superstring research is called the Big Splat, and involves four-dimensional manifolds embedded in a five-dimensional manifold, of which two collide and start the Big Bang...
Also, every object currently moving outward from the center of the universe is being slowed but the sum total of all of the gravition of the objects behind it.
There's no such thing as the centre of the Universe. If there was we'd be able to tell whereabouts we were because everything would be rushing away from the centre. Instead the Universe is isotropic and homogenous - ie. it looks the same in all directions and from all positions. Wherever you are in the Universe you'll see the rest of the Universe spreading away from your position.
And anyway, whether gravity can slow down the expansion of the Universe enough depends on the amount of matter within it, which is a conserved quantity. Of course, as gravity follows an inverse square law the forces slowing down spacetime expansion get weaker over time, and we just don't know whether there's enough matter so that gravity is strong enough.
Don't get off blaming the US for Saudi Arabia's treatment of its people.
I'm not saying that the US is directly responsible for the treatment of Saudi Arabia's people, but I am saying that the US ensures that the status quo is maintained without being concerned about what this entails. Morality just doesn't come into it at all, it's all strictly business.
We don't prop up Syria or Iraq yet they do the same as Saudi Arabia...
LOL! The US supported Saddam Hussein for years and funded his regime when it was convenient for the US to have someone to fight Iran. Up until he invaded Kuwait he had our full support in whatever he did, and indeed he thought we would support him invading Kuwait!
Its very politically correct to blame America for the worlds woes, but sometimes, just maybe, you have to blame those other countries for their own plight.
No, I'm blaming the US for adding to these countries woes. Although in many other cases they are directly responsible - helping to overthrow a democratically elected government in Chile and installing a dictatorship that murdered thousands for instance. For the US, this is pretty tame.
Or did you just not read my post? I'm really not sure...
Do you suggest that if all americans drove econoboxes it would change anything?
Hmm, let's see. Being less reliant on foreign oil would mean less impetus for meddling in the affairs of oil-producing countries and propping up dictatorships. And history has shown that before US interventions much of the Middle East was heading towards greater democracy. Without US-planned and funded overthrows of elected governments, the region would undoubtedly be much more stable.
What's the most democratic country in the region? Iran. Sure they have their problems with the Ayatollahs, but being free from US meddling has let them re-establish democracy. Their government has a greater percentage of women in it than the US does you know.
Think of it this way, if not for their oil, Saudi Arabia could support (as in FEED!) only part of their population. Aside from a destination for pilgrimage to all Muslims they would be NOTHING.
Did I say stop Saudi Arabia selling oil? Oh no, that's right, I didn't. Idiot.
BS!!! STFU!! Go to europe and live there for few years. Europeans are just as money motivated, corrupt and dependant on the technologies, oil and other "goods" of globalization as is US of A.
*yawn* Yes, I know Europe is as advanced as America. But if you look at the history of the region for the last fifty years, it's not Europe that has been constantly meddling is it? They were too busy rebuilding after WWII (and being gouged by US companies) to be stomping on countries across the globe.
What do you suggest? embargos? Nothing that America will or will NOT do, can help average Saudi.
Stop propping up the corrupt and hated regime in charge, and change will come naturally. I don't expect the US to do anything else. The problem is not that the US doesn't meddle, it's that it does! Without such outside influence the people will determine their own path.
BTW it was american companies "helping" restrict flow of information and not _evil_ american government! Grow up, get involved, don't invest in companies that YOU find morally questionable.
Wow! Really! Thanks! I know that, read my fucking post you moron. Until you start learning basic reading comprehension, why should I listen to a word you say?
Not so what so much for the oppressed citizens of Saudi Arabia, but this is just the logical conclusion of the US's policy towards the country. This is just the corporate world getting their cut of the profits out of the situation.
After all the US has been happy to prop up a corrupt, undemocratic and brutal regime there just to ensure the free flow of oil to fuel SUVs and cheap fuel. Every time a USian moans about the price of fuel they're helping to keep the citizens of Saudi Arabia under oppression. And since our country is all about money, money, money at the expense of little things like decency and human rights, why shouldn't our corporations get involved in helping? It's not like they don't have enough practice at oppression themselves.
Sorry, but if you're getting upset about this I suggest you first take a long look at what our government has done in Saudi Arabia first. Whining about censoring the net when these people lack even a pretense at human rights just shows you're hopelessly naive.
Well, I think these countries are in need of scientists.
Nonsense, what these countries need is food, healthcare and an end to the endless brutality of tribal warlords, not some ivory tower academics sitting around pondering issues. Until they acheive stability, there is no need for these countries to bother with providing for scientists, especially ones that can't compete with Western researchers anyway due to a lack of resources.
Why not instead put all american scientists (with all their funding) in countries with less opportunities to give money to research? This would give a lot of job opportunities as well.
How foolish! Not only would we be squandering a national resource, but we'd be sending our scientists to a life of misery grubbing in the dirt for food to life, let alone engage in constructive research.
I think you need to check your facts first before posting.
Rather than let these scientists continue to work where they lack any kind of facilities, why not bring them over here to the US to work instead?
After all, even with this initiative the fact remains that these people will remain lacking the best tools of their trades - a lot of this software is most definitely not free! And by being stuck in places cut off from the rest of the world they lose out on the chance to engage other scientists and join in the scientific process.
No, it would be much more beneficial to let them come and work in the US at some of our wonderful research facilities. Not only would it help their scientific skills to flower in the right environment, but it would also offset the brain drain our great nation is suffering thanks to the perception of science as being less important than greed.
Why is anyone really surprise by this move by the Chinese government? It's not like they're known for being a bunch of liberals after all - just ask some of Falun Gong for instance how they treat ideas that they don't like. No, the Chinese government may like to talk about their progressive nature and "liberalising" (heh) their country, but the truth is they're as big a bunch of Reds as the Soviets ever were.
How is though that the US is prepared to kiss ass in order to trade with them when we spent close to fifty years fighting the Red menace before? Modern USia has quite simply lost any semblance of morality and ideology other than the dollar and a kind of rabid Christianity. Whatever happened to fighting the good fight against communism because it threatened the freedoms we fought so hard to win?
Are our principles now to be sacrificed because we want cheap Chinese products? Can this country sink any lower?
Take a long look through the projects on SourceForge. Notice anything? That's right, most of them haven't been updated in well over a year, and most of them are being run by one person on their own.
Although open source projects hold great potential for cooperative development, it seems that in the real world there are few bazaars and plenty of lonely coders working on their own projects. Some of these are lucky enough to generate interest, but most don't. Then again, most aren't particularly novel anyway.
The truth is that there are a million projects out there, some of which are more far moreworthy and interesting than the things suggested here. And if people are looking for something to contribute to, then they're going to go for these high-profile projects rather than someone's home-grown application.
So I guess you'll be lucky to find anyone to take these over (well apart from posting it on/. perhaps). Open source is great, but it only works for projects interesting enough to generate "many eyes" rather than someone's personal hobby code.
You should have read your Economics textbook more closely.
You should perhaps start looking at a wider range of economics textbooks.
A free market always gives a good situation for the consumer, always gives an optimal situation for the consumer. This is simply known as the Law of Supply and Demand.
In simplistic models yes, but they fail to take into account many of the realities of real world economics - the lack of perfect information for instance. They also don't take into account human capital either, although neo-liberals are quite happy about leaving such concerns out of their propaganda.
For some empirical evidence instead, contrast the Soviet Union's consumer with the American consumer in the mid-80s. You would rather stand in line for toilet paper?
The Soviet Union was a mess, sure. But look at it today with a far freer market than the US - massive corruption, waste and poverty. My, what a success.
The fact that the private sector invariably gives rise to the worst possible situation for the consumer, and that space should not be available for the obscene profit gouging that the US supports wholeheartedly. Given the fact that in every market our government has shown its willingness to bend over and take it from its corporate masters, why should space be any different?
How did it ever get to the point where one of our greatest and proudest institutions needs to privitize one of their greatest resources in order to keep going? Americans everywhere should be ashamed at this rape of our space program, once the envy of the world.
No other country in the world comes close to the US in terms of economic might, and yet it is near-third-world nations like China that are now expanding their space programs as we are selling off ours. Hell, they're even talking about putting men on the moon, something we did once and then got bored with. As a nation we have the attention span of a four year-old child, and about as much forward-thinking. We'd much rather forget about the future (and everything else) and concentrate on our televisions and big honking SUVs, despite the fact that our initial lead in the space race could have been leveraged into an unassailable one.
No, this is just another symptom of the long, slow decline of the US into a narcissistic corporate paradise as the rest of the world forges on ahead of us into the future. It seems the only people here with any kind of enthusiasm are the ones that want to control your lives; everyone would rather let them get on with and have removed the intolerable burden of decision making.
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors.. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt.45 and a.38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Jesus Christ, thank god they ruled against this reporter, because otherwise it opens the floodgates for a whole freakshow of losers claiming to be "disabled" and requiring special treatment to make up for the fact that they're either stupid or lazy.
"I can't type", "I can't read", "I can't add", well boo fucking hoo, get over it and get on with life. Not being able to type is hardly the end of the world, there are plenty of jobs out there that don't require constant typing.
Oh, and it's also only RSI! It's not even like she's had her fingers chopped off now is it? I know people in this country like to make every little thing into a medical conditions, but if this continues then sufferers of FALSE (Fat And Lazy SyndromE) will be clamoring for ADA protection and handouts.
Okay, so I used to be as big a Star Trek fan as the next teenage geek without a social life, but I've sort of had better things to do recently, and the last couple of series haven't exactly floated my boat in terms of storyline, quality or acting. It seems the Star Trek is decaying with all the inevitability of uranium 235.
But why for the love of God did they pick Scott Bakula to play the captain? Have they never seen Quantum Leap!? Not only did it feature some of the most hackneyed, unoriginal plot lines seen on TV, but the acting made The Dukes of Hazzard look like an Oscar winner! Scott Blatula has all the emotional range of Pinocchio, without any of the novelty extending body parts! If you thought Janeway reminded you of a Dalek in terms of acting skill, just wait and be amazed!
Making the fifth installment of such a long-running show is incredibly tricky. Hiring third-rate actors is not making it any easier. I'll watch the pilot, but any hopes I had plummeted when I heard the news.
Slashdot Mirror
You pay that much for pills? I wouldn't pay more than 5 in a club, and I don't even pay that much when I get them from a dealer...
They most certainly do travel at other speeds! It may have been a while since I took a physics course, but as I recall, "c" is the speed of light in a vacuum.
That's because they keep getting absorbed by the atoms in the material and then re-emitted, which takes time (depending on things like the density of the material for instance). The actual photons always travel at c.
Neutrinos are generated in the reaction n -^gt; p + e + v where a free neutron decays to a proton, and electron and an anti-neutrino, and pretty much every reaction that takes place within the Sun's fusion cycle.
It could be any number of weird particles that come out of particle physicist's models - axions, technicolor particles, Higg's bosons and so on - although I'd say this was unlikely. Perhaps more likely are the supersymmetric partner particles of normal matter. If supersymmetry is true then every fermion has a supersymmetric boson partner and every boson has a supersymmetric fermion partner. So you get electrons and selectrons, quarks and squarks, W particles and winos and so on. All of the sparticles are a lot heavier than their normal counterparts which could be some of the dark matter.
But that's nothing to do with a centre is it? The sphere may have a centre but space doesn't, and even if you contract the universe back to the centre of the sphere you can still never say that space has any particular centre. And the centre of the sphere is nothing more than the initial singularity at t=0, which isn't really a centre of anything either.
Hmm, maybe you should go back and do some more physics...
that's funny you say photons have no rest mass because last time i checked no one had been able to slow a photon down to zero velocity (they might get close, but not zero),
You can't slow a photon down - they travel at c and no other speed. And this is because they have no rest mass, as has been born out by every experiment ever done involving photons! Amazing eh?
From the page you linked to:
In the above all-sky map, radiation in the Earth's direction of motion appears blueshifted and hence hotter, while radiation on the opposite side of the sky is redshifted and colder. The map indicates that the Local Group moves at about 600 kilometers per second relative to this primordial radiation.
The difference between the two halves of the sky is due to the relative motion of the Local Group of galaxies, not some "centre of the universe" effect.
if the universe were to go into a big crunch we will be moving back toward the center.....
Not at all. Using the usual analogy think of a universe with 2 spacial and 1 time dimension, where the spatial dimensions are on the surface of a "balloon." As the universe expands (as in blowing the balloon up) things get further apart, but equally so at every point on the surface of the balloon - there is no "centre". Equally so for when it is contracting - it contracts everywhere equally and there is no centre of contraction on the surface.
Extrapolating from a 3-d sphere to a 4-d hypersphere, it's easy to see there doesn't have to be a centre in this case either. It's just a lot harder to visualise :)
the center of the univers is at the center of a super sphere.
What supersphere? Do you mean a 4-d spacetime hypersphere? I still don't think that the centre of that has any physical meaning unless you ascribe it as being the initial singularity at t=0 (which probably doesn't exist).
if we can find a glow at the most far out reach...farther than the farhtes Quasar...and that glow is equal eveywhere, then that is the center of the universe.
Are you talking about the microwave background radiation which is everywhere? That's all that's left of the afterglow of the Big Bang, the glow itself stopped after 300,000 years when the energy density of the Universe dropped low enough so that photons stopped interacting with matter so often.
Apart from that you make no sense. What does 4 dimensions have to do with the fact that the Universe is homogenous?
Seriously, even if no central point can be defined from a distance perspective (which I am perfectly willing to accept), there must still be a gravitational center - a location where the amount of matter, and the average of that matter's distance works out to be roughly equal in all directions.
That's the whole point of it being isotropic and homogenous - there is no single preferred point at which you can say "this is the centre". At any point you choose there is a (approximately) uniform distribution of matter in every direction. Sure there are local irregularities (galactic superclusters for instance), but on a large enough scale this uniformity seems to hold.
Of course, this is speculative, and as much as I'd like to see a unified theory of everything someday, I don't know that we'll ever get there. The thing I like about the cyclic Big Bang/Big Crunch idea is that it puts us on a timer! We don't have forever to solve all of the riddles of the universe... It's more like (Forever - 1).
Heh, well the latest theory to come out of superstring research is called the Big Splat, and involves four-dimensional manifolds embedded in a five-dimensional manifold, of which two collide and start the Big Bang...
Also, every object currently moving outward from the center of the universe is being slowed but the sum total of all of the gravition of the objects behind it.
There's no such thing as the centre of the Universe. If there was we'd be able to tell whereabouts we were because everything would be rushing away from the centre. Instead the Universe is isotropic and homogenous - ie. it looks the same in all directions and from all positions. Wherever you are in the Universe you'll see the rest of the Universe spreading away from your position.
And anyway, whether gravity can slow down the expansion of the Universe enough depends on the amount of matter within it, which is a conserved quantity. Of course, as gravity follows an inverse square law the forces slowing down spacetime expansion get weaker over time, and we just don't know whether there's enough matter so that gravity is strong enough.
Probably not, but who knows?
Don't get off blaming the US for Saudi Arabia's treatment of its people.
I'm not saying that the US is directly responsible for the treatment of Saudi Arabia's people, but I am saying that the US ensures that the status quo is maintained without being concerned about what this entails. Morality just doesn't come into it at all, it's all strictly business.
We don't prop up Syria or Iraq yet they do the same as Saudi Arabia...
LOL! The US supported Saddam Hussein for years and funded his regime when it was convenient for the US to have someone to fight Iran. Up until he invaded Kuwait he had our full support in whatever he did, and indeed he thought we would support him invading Kuwait!
Its very politically correct to blame America for the worlds woes, but sometimes, just maybe, you have to blame those other countries for their own plight.
No, I'm blaming the US for adding to these countries woes. Although in many other cases they are directly responsible - helping to overthrow a democratically elected government in Chile and installing a dictatorship that murdered thousands for instance. For the US, this is pretty tame.
Or did you just not read my post? I'm really not sure...
Do you suggest that if all americans drove econoboxes it would change anything?
Hmm, let's see. Being less reliant on foreign oil would mean less impetus for meddling in the affairs of oil-producing countries and propping up dictatorships. And history has shown that before US interventions much of the Middle East was heading towards greater democracy. Without US-planned and funded overthrows of elected governments, the region would undoubtedly be much more stable.
What's the most democratic country in the region? Iran. Sure they have their problems with the Ayatollahs, but being free from US meddling has let them re-establish democracy. Their government has a greater percentage of women in it than the US does you know.
Think of it this way, if not for their oil, Saudi Arabia could support (as in FEED!) only part of their population. Aside from a destination for pilgrimage to all Muslims they would be NOTHING.
Did I say stop Saudi Arabia selling oil? Oh no, that's right, I didn't. Idiot.
BS!!! STFU!! Go to europe and live there for few years. Europeans are just as money motivated, corrupt and dependant on the technologies, oil and other "goods" of globalization as is US of A.
*yawn* Yes, I know Europe is as advanced as America. But if you look at the history of the region for the last fifty years, it's not Europe that has been constantly meddling is it? They were too busy rebuilding after WWII (and being gouged by US companies) to be stomping on countries across the globe.
What do you suggest? embargos? Nothing that America will or will NOT do, can help average Saudi.
Stop propping up the corrupt and hated regime in charge, and change will come naturally. I don't expect the US to do anything else. The problem is not that the US doesn't meddle, it's that it does! Without such outside influence the people will determine their own path.
BTW it was american companies "helping" restrict flow of information and not _evil_ american government! Grow up, get involved, don't invest in companies that YOU find morally questionable.
Wow! Really! Thanks! I know that, read my fucking post you moron. Until you start learning basic reading comprehension, why should I listen to a word you say?
Not so what so much for the oppressed citizens of Saudi Arabia, but this is just the logical conclusion of the US's policy towards the country. This is just the corporate world getting their cut of the profits out of the situation.
After all the US has been happy to prop up a corrupt, undemocratic and brutal regime there just to ensure the free flow of oil to fuel SUVs and cheap fuel. Every time a USian moans about the price of fuel they're helping to keep the citizens of Saudi Arabia under oppression. And since our country is all about money, money, money at the expense of little things like decency and human rights, why shouldn't our corporations get involved in helping? It's not like they don't have enough practice at oppression themselves.
Sorry, but if you're getting upset about this I suggest you first take a long look at what our government has done in Saudi Arabia first. Whining about censoring the net when these people lack even a pretense at human rights just shows you're hopelessly naive.
Well, I think these countries are in need of scientists.
Nonsense, what these countries need is food, healthcare and an end to the endless brutality of tribal warlords, not some ivory tower academics sitting around pondering issues. Until they acheive stability, there is no need for these countries to bother with providing for scientists, especially ones that can't compete with Western researchers anyway due to a lack of resources.
Why not instead put all american scientists (with all their funding) in countries with less opportunities to give money to research? This would give a lot of job opportunities as well.
How foolish! Not only would we be squandering a national resource, but we'd be sending our scientists to a life of misery grubbing in the dirt for food to life, let alone engage in constructive research.
I think you need to check your facts first before posting.
Rather than let these scientists continue to work where they lack any kind of facilities, why not bring them over here to the US to work instead?
After all, even with this initiative the fact remains that these people will remain lacking the best tools of their trades - a lot of this software is most definitely not free! And by being stuck in places cut off from the rest of the world they lose out on the chance to engage other scientists and join in the scientific process.
No, it would be much more beneficial to let them come and work in the US at some of our wonderful research facilities. Not only would it help their scientific skills to flower in the right environment, but it would also offset the brain drain our great nation is suffering thanks to the perception of science as being less important than greed.
Why is anyone really surprise by this move by the Chinese government? It's not like they're known for being a bunch of liberals after all - just ask some of Falun Gong for instance how they treat ideas that they don't like. No, the Chinese government may like to talk about their progressive nature and "liberalising" (heh) their country, but the truth is they're as big a bunch of Reds as the Soviets ever were.
How is though that the US is prepared to kiss ass in order to trade with them when we spent close to fifty years fighting the Red menace before? Modern USia has quite simply lost any semblance of morality and ideology other than the dollar and a kind of rabid Christianity. Whatever happened to fighting the good fight against communism because it threatened the freedoms we fought so hard to win?
Are our principles now to be sacrificed because we want cheap Chinese products? Can this country sink any lower?
Take a long look through the projects on SourceForge. Notice anything? That's right, most of them haven't been updated in well over a year, and most of them are being run by one person on their own.
Although open source projects hold great potential for cooperative development, it seems that in the real world there are few bazaars and plenty of lonely coders working on their own projects. Some of these are lucky enough to generate interest, but most don't. Then again, most aren't particularly novel anyway.
The truth is that there are a million projects out there, some of which are more far more worthy and interesting than the things suggested here. And if people are looking for something to contribute to, then they're going to go for these high-profile projects rather than someone's home-grown application.
So I guess you'll be lucky to find anyone to take these over (well apart from posting it on /. perhaps). Open source is great, but it only works for projects interesting enough to generate "many eyes" rather than someone's personal hobby code.
You should have read your Economics textbook more closely.
You should perhaps start looking at a wider range of economics textbooks.
A free market always gives a good situation for the consumer, always gives an optimal situation for the consumer. This is simply known as the Law of Supply and Demand.
In simplistic models yes, but they fail to take into account many of the realities of real world economics - the lack of perfect information for instance. They also don't take into account human capital either, although neo-liberals are quite happy about leaving such concerns out of their propaganda.
For some empirical evidence instead, contrast the Soviet Union's consumer with the American consumer in the mid-80s. You would rather stand in line for toilet paper?
The Soviet Union was a mess, sure. But look at it today with a far freer market than the US - massive corruption, waste and poverty. My, what a success.
What exactly is the problem here?
The fact that the private sector invariably gives rise to the worst possible situation for the consumer, and that space should not be available for the obscene profit gouging that the US supports wholeheartedly. Given the fact that in every market our government has shown its willingness to bend over and take it from its corporate masters, why should space be any different?
How did it ever get to the point where one of our greatest and proudest institutions needs to privitize one of their greatest resources in order to keep going? Americans everywhere should be ashamed at this rape of our space program, once the envy of the world.
No other country in the world comes close to the US in terms of economic might, and yet it is near-third-world nations like China that are now expanding their space programs as we are selling off ours. Hell, they're even talking about putting men on the moon, something we did once and then got bored with. As a nation we have the attention span of a four year-old child, and about as much forward-thinking. We'd much rather forget about the future (and everything else) and concentrate on our televisions and big honking SUVs, despite the fact that our initial lead in the space race could have been leveraged into an unassailable one.
No, this is just another symptom of the long, slow decline of the US into a narcissistic corporate paradise as the rest of the world forges on ahead of us into the future. It seems the only people here with any kind of enthusiasm are the ones that want to control your lives; everyone would rather let them get on with and have removed the intolerable burden of decision making.
Or in Python:
As Python has tuples as part of the language and they can be unpacked in this manner. I think Perl does something similar as well.It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Jesus Christ, thank god they ruled against this reporter, because otherwise it opens the floodgates for a whole freakshow of losers claiming to be "disabled" and requiring special treatment to make up for the fact that they're either stupid or lazy.
"I can't type", "I can't read", "I can't add", well boo fucking hoo, get over it and get on with life. Not being able to type is hardly the end of the world, there are plenty of jobs out there that don't require constant typing.
Oh, and it's also only RSI! It's not even like she's had her fingers chopped off now is it? I know people in this country like to make every little thing into a medical conditions, but if this continues then sufferers of FALSE (Fat And Lazy SyndromE) will be clamoring for ADA protection and handouts.
Well done the court for once!
Okay, so I used to be as big a Star Trek fan as the next teenage geek without a social life, but I've sort of had better things to do recently, and the last couple of series haven't exactly floated my boat in terms of storyline, quality or acting. It seems the Star Trek is decaying with all the inevitability of uranium 235.
But why for the love of God did they pick Scott Bakula to play the captain? Have they never seen Quantum Leap!? Not only did it feature some of the most hackneyed, unoriginal plot lines seen on TV, but the acting made The Dukes of Hazzard look like an Oscar winner! Scott Blatula has all the emotional range of Pinocchio, without any of the novelty extending body parts! If you thought Janeway reminded you of a Dalek in terms of acting skill, just wait and be amazed!
Making the fifth installment of such a long-running show is incredibly tricky. Hiring third-rate actors is not making it any easier. I'll watch the pilot, but any hopes I had plummeted when I heard the news.