They are assuming that if it has no electric dipole moment, then in some way it is spherical. I'm not really sure I buy it, but I'm not a particle physicist. The electron has a magnetic dipole moment because of its intrinsic angular momentum (spin), but that spin is not due to any motions within the electron, it is an intrinsic property. I'm not sure why the electric dipole moment wouldn't also be an intrinsic property, unrelated to any internal structure an electron has.
Is it always round, even when it's tunnelling through a potential wall?
I think that the way they are translating the physics into English is awful. I'm not sure I fully understand their method, but I'll try to restate. What they actually found was that they electric dipole moment of the electron was very small. It it were not that small, they would have seen changes in the wave function. From there they go to stating that if the electron can be modelled as a charge distribution or a charged object, that object would be spherically symmetric with dipolar radial deviations of less than that very small number. But more precisely, the wave function of an electron behaves as if it represents a particle that has a electric dipole moment less than 1.05E-27 ecm.
If course you couldn't actually make measurements to determine whether that dipole moment is a property of a physical shape of the electron or is an intrinsic property. Nothing we have can probe those size scales, and if you could you'd have particle antiparticle pairs popping up everywhere from the energy of the collisions. You might even create a new universe at those energies. Everything we've done so far suggests that the electron has no structure, but that's on much larger scales/lower energies.
I'm sitting at a networked Fedora 14 system. This NFS networking environment has been in continuous use since about 1987. The lowest active user number is in the 400s the highest is in the 9100s. We will not be changing user numbers. We will not use distributions that force us to change user numbers. We will not use utilities that force us to change user numbers. That will be all.
Highly radioactive fission products are in the core. They decay rapidly, creating heat. That's why it takes so damn long to cool a reactor down to the point where you can remove fuel from it. So you have to keep pumping in water until the fuel is well below 100C. If you took away the water, the reactor would heat up again.
That's also the reason that the spent fuel pool started to burn. The water evaporated and the fuel heated up to a hot enough temperature to burn the cladding, and possibly melt or burn some of the fuel.
I could swear that back at the time of the explosions they were saying that the low coolant levels had resulted in core damage and probable fuel melting. Or was I just getting a bad translation? They were saying it in a language I don't speak. The bigger question is whether the melted fuel went through the bottom of the reactor vessel, as it appears to have done at reactor #1, or whether it is still contained in reactor vessel. They seem to be implying that it is contained in the reactor vessel without actually stating it outright. Which leads me to believe that they aren't sure yet.
It's an even worse scam than that. It's AC, so they send the electricity out and suck it back in before it even gets to the consumer. The consumer only thinks they're getting power. All electrical appliances are just the placebo effect.
So, there is no requirement to offer source to anyone, only those who legitimately possess the object code.
Correct, but since you can't place requirements on redistribution of the object code most people would end up assuming that anyone who requests is in possession of the object code. It's easy enough just to set up a public repository for the code and be done with it.
Actually, you only *need* to provide source to those who you provide binaries.
That's only true is you provide source with the binaries. If you do not provide source with the binaries, you must provide with the binaries an offer to supply the source to anyone who requests it.
Fact 2: License does not specify when it has to be released.
The license doesn't stipulate that you can delay. Under GPL v2 a commercial distributor has two options: Option 1) Distribute source code with the binary. That's pretty clear in not allowing for delay. Option 2) With the source code, distribute an offer to provide source to anyone at no more than the cost of reproduction. I don't think any reasonable court could read those two option, in the same paragraph and conclude that the distributor could delay.
However, it's unlikely that anyone but an author of the code in question has the legal standing to sue for breach of the license. The license is an agreement between the copyright holder and the distributors. The most an end user could do is bring it to the attention of the copyright holders.
As long as they were doing it with their fortune, then you might think that would be true. But all IFR flight plans are public records. Our tax dollars helped them get to their destination. So if we want to know where they fly, we have a right to that information. What we don't know is which Senators and Congressmen were on the plane with them. Besides, Larry and Sergey attempt to track all of my movements online, so I think turnabout is fair play.
If Google picked up the tab for the plane or for the flights, then Google shareholders should be pissed.
The rule says "all natural systems will progress from a state of order to a state of chaos"
That's the problem with a non-technical understanding of physics. That's not what the second law states. Your definition would make water freezing into ice impossible, The 2nd law more correctly states that in a closed system entropy will increase. Entropy is not chaos and is not disorder. And you may have noticed that the Earth is not a closed system. As a whole the earth takes low entropy sunlight and converts it into high entropy infrared radiation. There's plenty of room in the intermediate steps for life (which is, itself, a prodigious generator of entropy) and evolution. You yourself take low entropy food and oxygen and turn it into high entropy shit and carbon dioxide.
So learn some physics before you come up with shit like this.
You might notice the word "seems" in that sentence. He doesn't say that his theory is absurd, but that he can understand how it might seem absurd. The evolution of the eye (several times, in different lineages, I might add. Some much better designs than the mammalian eye) is moderately well understood at this point. The starting point, a patch of light sensitive skin, provides a distinct advantage over competing life forms with no light sensing apparatus. I think the "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins has a description that is approachable to non-technical people. The whole book is a good read.
So? Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics and grand unified theories. Why should I expect him to be right about religion? It's not like scientists bow and pray to Einstein the way a Catholic might pray to a saint.
Just the face that it contains the words microevolution and macroevolution, which are not biological concepts indicates that it isn't an accurate description of that happened at that conference.
A better prediction from evolutionary theory is that a means for traits to be passed from one generation to the next would be found. Essentially, the theory of evolution predicted the existence of DNA. And the mechanisms by which DNA works provide proof of evolution.
So where are all the intermediate stages of evolution.
Every species is an intermediate stage of evolution. So long ago we humans had an apelike ancestor. So you said where's the thing between humans and ape? So we found Homo Erectus. Then you said, now there are two gaps, where's the thing between the apelike ancestor and Homo Erectus and the thing between Homo Erectus and modern humans? So then we found Australopithecus Africanis and Homo Habilis. And then you said now there are 4 gaps, where's the thing between the apelike ancestor and Australopithecus Africanis, and between Australopithecus Africanis and Homo Erectus, and between Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis, and between Homo Habilis and modern humans. And so on. We get more gaps, but the gaps get smaller. Eventually they get small enough that we can't fit a separate species in them. But there are certainly individuals in those gaps.
Just because you don't know who your direct maternal ancestor was 23 generations back is no reason to doubt that you had one.
If I were the University, my counter proposal would be "We'll pay some small amount for past damages, and our employees will no longer buy, use, or copy books from these publishers. We are not in control of or responsible for the behavior of our students, so they will have to be treated individually."
With the exception of modern literature and law, you can probably find enough material online to teach just about any course at the undergraduate level. At the graduate level (in my experience), the textbook is usually lecture notes written by the professor, and the professor usually makes them available online.
It's understandable that it needs to be explained. Nobody except the government and anonymous FTP sites use it anymore. And nobody including the government should be using it.
I've worked on unclassified DOD and NASA projects in the past, and FTP is the default for uploads and downloads. I've never been on a project where personnel would act on an upload without voice confirmation usually involving commands coded in the ICAO phonetic alphabet. I don't know this site, so I don't know if there's anything particularly sensitive there, or if it's just data distribution.
There's a reason they don't want to use SFTP. SFTP is just something that looks like FTP tunneled over SSH. SSH usually means a local account, and that's often not allowed even if shell access is disabled.
Government FTP sites tend to be poorly administered, sometimes with a single username and a guessable password given to all that need access. If there were a satellite named PRJ, the username would probably be prjuser and the password might be prjrules!!.
For my group access sites, I use https, with user changeable passwords for all users, a password reset that requires admin intervention, and custom upload/download code. I don't work for the government, though.
Slashdot Mirror
They are assuming that if it has no electric dipole moment, then in some way it is spherical. I'm not really sure I buy it, but I'm not a particle physicist. The electron has a magnetic dipole moment because of its intrinsic angular momentum (spin), but that spin is not due to any motions within the electron, it is an intrinsic property. I'm not sure why the electric dipole moment wouldn't also be an intrinsic property, unrelated to any internal structure an electron has.
Is it always round, even when it's tunnelling through a potential wall?
I think that the way they are translating the physics into English is awful. I'm not sure I fully understand their method, but I'll try to restate. What they actually found was that they electric dipole moment of the electron was very small. It it were not that small, they would have seen changes in the wave function. From there they go to stating that if the electron can be modelled as a charge distribution or a charged object, that object would be spherically symmetric with dipolar radial deviations of less than that very small number. But more precisely, the wave function of an electron behaves as if it represents a particle that has a electric dipole moment less than 1.05E-27 ecm.
If course you couldn't actually make measurements to determine whether that dipole moment is a property of a physical shape of the electron or is an intrinsic property. Nothing we have can probe those size scales, and if you could you'd have particle antiparticle pairs popping up everywhere from the energy of the collisions. You might even create a new universe at those energies. Everything we've done so far suggests that the electron has no structure, but that's on much larger scales/lower energies.
I'm sitting at a networked Fedora 14 system. This NFS networking environment has been in continuous use since about 1987. The lowest active user number is in the 400s the highest is in the 9100s. We will not be changing user numbers. We will not use distributions that force us to change user numbers. We will not use utilities that force us to change user numbers. That will be all.
That would be a good reason not to use those programs, or change distributions if you are forced to use them.
Or even better.....
# sed 's/:1001:/:501:/' /etc/passwd >/etc/passwd.new /etc/passwd /etc/passwd.bak /etc/passwd.new /etc/passwd
# cp
# cp
One of benefits of linux is that you don't have live with the arbitrary stylistic decisions of the distro maintainers.
Highly radioactive fission products are in the core. They decay rapidly, creating heat. That's why it takes so damn long to cool a reactor down to the point where you can remove fuel from it. So you have to keep pumping in water until the fuel is well below 100C. If you took away the water, the reactor would heat up again.
That's also the reason that the spent fuel pool started to burn. The water evaporated and the fuel heated up to a hot enough temperature to burn the cladding, and possibly melt or burn some of the fuel.
That happened on Saturday. Didn't you notice?
I could swear that back at the time of the explosions they were saying that the low coolant levels had resulted in core damage and probable fuel melting. Or was I just getting a bad translation? They were saying it in a language I don't speak. The bigger question is whether the melted fuel went through the bottom of the reactor vessel, as it appears to have done at reactor #1, or whether it is still contained in reactor vessel. They seem to be implying that it is contained in the reactor vessel without actually stating it outright. Which leads me to believe that they aren't sure yet.
It's an even worse scam than that. It's AC, so they send the electricity out and suck it back in before it even gets to the consumer. The consumer only thinks they're getting power. All electrical appliances are just the placebo effect.
So, there is no requirement to offer source to anyone, only those who legitimately possess the object code.
Correct, but since you can't place requirements on redistribution of the object code most people would end up assuming that anyone who requests is in possession of the object code. It's easy enough just to set up a public repository for the code and be done with it.
Actually, you only *need* to provide source to those who you provide binaries.
That's only true is you provide source with the binaries. If you do not provide source with the binaries, you must provide with the binaries an offer to supply the source to anyone who requests it.
Fact 1: GPL requires source code to be released.
Fact 2: License does not specify when it has to be released.
The license doesn't stipulate that you can delay. Under GPL v2 a commercial distributor has two options: Option 1) Distribute source code with the binary. That's pretty clear in not allowing for delay. Option 2) With the source code, distribute an offer to provide source to anyone at no more than the cost of reproduction. I don't think any reasonable court could read those two option, in the same paragraph and conclude that the distributor could delay.
However, it's unlikely that anyone but an author of the code in question has the legal standing to sue for breach of the license. The license is an agreement between the copyright holder and the distributors. The most an end user could do is bring it to the attention of the copyright holders.
As always, me no lawyer.
Absolutely right. They know my GPS coordinates right now, and which websites I'm browsing, and who I got email from today.
As long as they were doing it with their fortune, then you might think that would be true. But all IFR flight plans are public records. Our tax dollars helped them get to their destination. So if we want to know where they fly, we have a right to that information. What we don't know is which Senators and Congressmen were on the plane with them. Besides, Larry and Sergey attempt to track all of my movements online, so I think turnabout is fair play.
If Google picked up the tab for the plane or for the flights, then Google shareholders should be pissed.
The rule says "all natural systems will progress from a state of order to a state of chaos"
That's the problem with a non-technical understanding of physics. That's not what the second law states. Your definition would make water freezing into ice impossible, The 2nd law more correctly states that in a closed system entropy will increase. Entropy is not chaos and is not disorder. And you may have noticed that the Earth is not a closed system. As a whole the earth takes low entropy sunlight and converts it into high entropy infrared radiation. There's plenty of room in the intermediate steps for life (which is, itself, a prodigious generator of entropy) and evolution. You yourself take low entropy food and oxygen and turn it into high entropy shit and carbon dioxide.
So learn some physics before you come up with shit like this.
You might notice the word "seems" in that sentence. He doesn't say that his theory is absurd, but that he can understand how it might seem absurd. The evolution of the eye (several times, in different lineages, I might add. Some much better designs than the mammalian eye) is moderately well understood at this point. The starting point, a patch of light sensitive skin, provides a distinct advantage over competing life forms with no light sensing apparatus. I think the "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins has a description that is approachable to non-technical people. The whole book is a good read.
So? Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics and grand unified theories. Why should I expect him to be right about religion? It's not like scientists bow and pray to Einstein the way a Catholic might pray to a saint.
Just the face that it contains the words microevolution and macroevolution, which are not biological concepts indicates that it isn't an accurate description of that happened at that conference.
Try a logical analysis. All creationists are theists. All theists are not creationists.
A better prediction from evolutionary theory is that a means for traits to be passed from one generation to the next would be found. Essentially, the theory of evolution predicted the existence of DNA. And the mechanisms by which DNA works provide proof of evolution.
The duck-billed platypus has a very well defined relationship between it and other mammals. It didn't just appear suddenly.
So where are all the intermediate stages of evolution.
Every species is an intermediate stage of evolution. So long ago we humans had an apelike ancestor. So you said where's the thing between humans and ape? So we found Homo Erectus. Then you said, now there are two gaps, where's the thing between the apelike ancestor and Homo Erectus and the thing between Homo Erectus and modern humans? So then we found Australopithecus Africanis and Homo Habilis. And then you said now there are 4 gaps, where's the thing between the apelike ancestor and Australopithecus Africanis, and between Australopithecus Africanis and Homo Erectus, and between Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis, and between Homo Habilis and modern humans. And so on. We get more gaps, but the gaps get smaller. Eventually they get small enough that we can't fit a separate species in them. But there are certainly individuals in those gaps.
Just because you don't know who your direct maternal ancestor was 23 generations back is no reason to doubt that you had one.
If I were the University, my counter proposal would be "We'll pay some small amount for past damages, and our employees will no longer buy, use, or copy books from these publishers. We are not in control of or responsible for the behavior of our students, so they will have to be treated individually."
With the exception of modern literature and law, you can probably find enough material online to teach just about any course at the undergraduate level. At the graduate level (in my experience), the textbook is usually lecture notes written by the professor, and the professor usually makes them available online.
Ouch. Hopefully it's still faster than an ext3 fsck.
It's understandable that it needs to be explained. Nobody except the government and anonymous FTP sites use it anymore. And nobody including the government should be using it.
I've worked on unclassified DOD and NASA projects in the past, and FTP is the default for uploads and downloads. I've never been on a project where personnel would act on an upload without voice confirmation usually involving commands coded in the ICAO phonetic alphabet. I don't know this site, so I don't know if there's anything particularly sensitive there, or if it's just data distribution.
There's a reason they don't want to use SFTP. SFTP is just something that looks like FTP tunneled over SSH. SSH usually means a local account, and that's often not allowed even if shell access is disabled.
Government FTP sites tend to be poorly administered, sometimes with a single username and a guessable password given to all that need access. If there were a satellite named PRJ, the username would probably be prjuser and the password might be prjrules!!.
For my group access sites, I use https, with user changeable passwords for all users, a password reset that requires admin intervention, and custom upload/download code. I don't work for the government, though.