IANAOP (optic physicist), but my guess is energy dissipation in your optical/logical circuits (from the projected laser beam...) should be a worse limitation.
(even if your system's resonances are far from the lasers' frequencies)
I've been in the army, I know about risks. you can take risks as an amature, or as a professional (even a novice pro.)
columbus did something nobody ever did before, and did it as a pro; with heavy financial backers and as part of a large (in his time's scale) team, with technical dificulties at the scale of those times (for this he justfully entered history)
what this guy tries to do is much more complex than trying to build a 14-th century galeon (with 14-th century tools and knowhow) by himself.
why ? QA of complex systems costs expert work-time, a lot of work-time. in non-critical software (such as linux OS at its begining) this is less of a problem: you recompile, and reinstall from backup. But in critical-mission projects QA is the most expensive portion of the work, by far. (read feynman's book about chalenger to get the scale of NASA's QA processes)
one man alone cannot invest that much resources even if he's as smart as all the nobel-prize winners together.
so columbus was a dreamer, which used appropriate tools in appropriate scale for a job never done before. This guy uses the wrong tools at the wrong scale for his job, and risks his life (perhaps more lives) on such a half-tested rocket. This is what I call amature.
Also, he does not risk his life to protect his loved ones, or even to get a new scientific result, it is for plain brass.
great deeds are done by realistic, professional (wo)men with great dreams.
"Microsoft is desperate and is fighting a war they cannot win"
even so, they can decrease the damping coeeficient by much.
this is what most people don't understand about MS: they are smart people, they know they'll lose EVENTUALLY if they won't change, but they want to profit as much as they can while it's still worth it not to change.
in other words, they fight, but profit from it, the eventual loss will be of their share-holders.
"Safe to say, I care." I belive you, but making fun of the subject (spooky voice etc.) is not the best way of expressing that.
" Oh, and "they" have been planning to "hit US nuclear plants" since about a week after the nuclear plants went up. Hasn't happened, or even come close. It's either a load of shiite,"
you should have said that September the 10-th.
"... not enough for me to spend my life worrying about it "
your government should, and when they come to you with requests regarding your privacy, you as a citizen should take it into account: if you don't, then you don't consider the full problem.
(note I'm not saying you should AGREE to everything the US gov. proposes, I'm saying you should THINK it through, or vote for poeple who think it through)
talking of "wealth" as a single random vasriable (which is the way I described it) you are, of course right.
but this RV can be (and is) highly correlated with a function of many other parameters (education, societal values, ambition, talents ): to this I ment when I said "gradient": and the distribution of wealth is governed by a diffusion law on some manifold, created by other constraints.
but of course I did not say so on my original post, so you were right.
2) on morality "Morality is assumed to be an absolute system that dictates what people should and shouldn't do..."
assumed (absolute) by who ? human laws are allways subject for change (formally- through legislation, and informally- through discussions and precedents)
and even If you are religous, and assume a deity gave you a set of absolute values, he in his eternal wisdom (no irony) can have an infinite set of values, but we have to interpret a final set as time and context changes; a live religion may have absolute values: but the (human) interpretations are very much in flux, since new situation occur.
so there can be no "absolute" set of values. to be a moral person, in my view, is to balance the good of society and fellow citizens with your family, and act to the better interest of all. And social values are your "theoretical tools" with which you speculate what is the better way to act.
Theoretical tools can however be wrong, or even contradictory, they should be used and develloped, but allways with a grain of salt.
3) on taxation. "[with taxation in general] the government [Joe Smith] is providing me with certain services in return for my money. "
so what is different here ? taxation is never "fair" , and you allways get less than you paid for. You also cannot (legally) choose not to be taxed, it is an inforced bargain.
but as for your question "what do I get in return?" I say you may get a healthier, steadier society, where you are less afraid some poor joe will kidnap your daughter for ransom.
taking the distribution of wealth as a function, the amount of discontent is a function of it's gradient.
extreme comunism == gradient too low (everyone is equally dissadisfied) => no-one works very hard unnless in a gulag => society will deteriorate. extreme capitalism == gradient too high , people starving even though food exists, eventually too much discontent creates a revolution.
add to that the subject of inheritance (of furtune, NOT properties... )
extreme socialism (as in france) == the government redistributes wealth by heavy taxation of inheritance, some widdows have to sell their house (!!) to pay the tax,,rich people flee the country.
extreme capitalism (USA): no taxation of inheritance whatsoever (AFAIK), hence the gaps widen with each generation (what do you need to become a billioner ? be a millioner, much easier when daddy's one.)
( that's what wrong with your assumption: you own what you produce + what father produced, hence the "equity lords" don't need to produce anything, they'll still get richer.)
so my metric is this: what balance will benefit our children the most ? property laws and morals should benefit human beings, not the other way around.
Nobody's afraid of the FBI here (the ones that should will probably be too busy making bombs or serine gas, not posting/. )
what people are afraid of is the oppinion of their fellow readers: today a reader, tommorow a moderator, and he may be arab or israeli or chinese or whatever.
the tirany of the masses... for which/. is a good testing-ground.
I want to be able to choose how my time is spent, and I'm willing to pay for good products.
what you're saying is that by excercising my priorities I don't allow the networks to force-feed me their set of values, thereby hurting them financially.
I realy want the networks to profit; I want them to do this by creating material that has it's own worth, measured by my own valueable money, not by people who wish to poison my mind.
I am completely honest in that: give me the choice, I'll buy it when I think it's good.
" I swear to God, the year that we perfect a method to endlessly duplicate food will be the year in which half of the US population starves to death "
were you joking ? read steinbeck's "grapes of wrath" there he's talking about the great depression. the rural parts of america were producing a LOT of food, still many immigrants were starving.
that method you talked about was then called agriculture, and yes, capitalism made people starve.
every few years comes some researcher and suggests asynchronous design and every time the industry ignores him.
the reason is simple : verification.
it is tough enough as it is to verify a synchronous design (exponentially hard, in fact.) it takes about least 1/2 of development time. (actually more like 2/3 most of the time.)
adding to this the complexity of many time scales and asynchronous tasks and you very quickly reach something which cannot be verified.
moreover, the actual value of asynchrounicity in terms of performance cannot be predicted in advance , so what you're asking for is changing a complete industry to a much riskier method, with no quantitatively defined profit.
cool idea, impractical.
Yea, like the pill hadn't changed sex for humans
on
The Next Generation
·
· Score: 1
in a fundemental way: it can be detached from procreation (hence the decline of monogamicity).
the societal repercussions are still felt.
or our relationship with our fathers/grandfathers how will they change if they are still productive 5 generations down the line ? (might be a change to the best, but there will be change)
can't you see how the invention of print changed the human kind ? or how the invention of gun-powder changed most of the human race from feudal vassals to workers able to unite and be reconned with ? (to some degree ?)
saying nothing has changed in the human condition is largely an emotional statement, not based on a rational appraisal.
its all in the numbers: how fast will they adapt ? is there a difference between different gravity settings (coriolis...) are there methods to improve the adaptation rate ? what is the difference between children/adults ? between humans/apes/other species ? are there more accurate methods of studying such mental models ?
A neutron star: "comapct stellar object that is supported against collapse... by the degeneracy pressure of neutrons from which it is mainly composed..." (Oxford Dictionary of physics)
neutron star is not a condensate, but degeneracy pressure is just the quantity (no pun intended) of the E.P.
or in other words: the fermi energy of the star as a whole is what produces your "other force" (degeneracy-pressure) and it exists exactly because the fermions cannot condensate.
using an accurate measuring technique involving mossbaur effect the difference in momentum of a photon rising several meters was actually measured: divide that with g and you get the mass.
an amazingly cool experiment, though somewhat old.
so this means gravity does affect light (though there are much simpler experiments which showed that, as early as the 1920's, I believe)
i'm not sure about these grav-stars, but the orthodox model is:
BEC: occurs only for bosons, it is many bosons sharing the same state.
Pauli exclusion principle: applies only to fermions, it means no more than 2 can fill the same state. it means there can be no "fermion condensate".
a neutron star is made of neutrons (DUH..) which have spin 1/2 are fermions, and pauli's E.P. is exactly what holds the neutron star from collapsing to a condensate...
Slashdot Mirror
do investors dream of electric analysts ?
diffraction is of course a limit.
...) should be a worse limitation.
IANAOP (optic physicist), but my guess is energy dissipation in your optical/logical circuits (from the projected laser beam
(even if your system's resonances are far from the lasers' frequencies)
Then, of course, there's the obligatory 3D pr0n.
you could try a woman. they're 3D in a deeper way.
" ... I get headaches (for some reason) when I wear my glasses for extended periods of time in front of the monitor"
do you remember to give your eyes a break every 20..30 minutes ?
just remove your eyes from the screen, and look at infinity ( x > 30 meters) for a minute or two.
to remind you, you can use the xwrits program.
-- HTH
I've been in the army, I know about risks.
you can take risks as an amature, or as a professional (even a novice pro.)
columbus did something nobody ever did before, and did it as a pro; with heavy financial backers and as part of a large (in his time's scale) team, with technical dificulties at the scale of those times (for this he justfully entered history)
what this guy tries to do is much more complex than trying to build a 14-th century galeon (with 14-th century tools and knowhow) by himself.
why ? QA of complex systems costs expert work-time, a lot of work-time. in non-critical software (such as linux OS at its begining) this is less of a problem: you recompile, and reinstall from backup. But in critical-mission projects QA is the most expensive portion of the work, by far.
(read feynman's book about chalenger to get the scale of NASA's QA processes)
one man alone cannot invest that much resources even if he's as smart as all the nobel-prize winners together.
so columbus was a dreamer, which used appropriate tools in appropriate scale for a job never done before. This guy uses the wrong tools at the wrong scale for his job, and risks his life (perhaps more lives) on such a half-tested rocket. This is what I call amature.
Also, he does not risk his life to protect his loved ones, or even to get a new scientific result, it is for plain brass.
great deeds are done by realistic, professional (wo)men with great dreams.
this guy does not seem so.
putting yourself in a situation where every single bug may kill you, NEEDLESSLY, is sheer stupidity in my book.
a smart person avoids what a clever person may barely escape.
"Microsoft is desperate and is fighting a war they cannot win"
even so, they can decrease the damping coeeficient by much.
this is what most people don't understand about MS: they are smart people, they know they'll lose EVENTUALLY if they won't change, but they want to profit as much as they can while it's still worth it not to change.
in other words, they fight, but profit from it, the eventual loss will be of their share-holders.
"Safe to say, I care."
I belive you, but making fun of the subject (spooky voice etc.) is not the best way of expressing that.
" Oh, and "they" have been planning to "hit US nuclear plants" since about a week after the nuclear plants went up. Hasn't happened, or even come close. It's either a load of shiite,"
you should have said that September the 10-th.
"... not enough for me to spend my life worrying about it "
your government should, and when they come to you with requests regarding your privacy, you as a citizen should take it into account: if you don't, then you don't consider the full problem.
(note I'm not saying you should AGREE to everything the US gov. proposes, I'm saying you should THINK it through, or vote for poeple who think it through)
"public's fear of the specter of (spooky voice)terrrorism "
you're not concerned about people that killed 3000 americans and are planning to hit US nuclear plants ?
that's not bravery, that's refusing to touch reality, even remotely.
privacy is a legitimate concern, and security ( protecting one's life and health ) isn't ? sheesh.
it's not called mind-washing for nothing;
wash, spin, rinse , repeat...
1) slope Vs gradient
talking of "wealth" as a single random vasriable (which is the way I described it) you are, of course right.
but this RV can be (and is) highly correlated with a function of many other parameters (education, societal values, ambition, talents ): to this I ment when I said "gradient": and the distribution of wealth is governed by a diffusion law on some manifold, created by other constraints.
but of course I did not say so on my original post, so you were right.
2) on morality
"Morality is assumed to be an absolute system that dictates what people should and shouldn't do..."
assumed (absolute) by who ? human laws are allways subject for change (formally- through legislation, and informally- through discussions and precedents)
and even If you are religous, and assume a deity gave you a set of absolute values, he in his eternal wisdom (no irony) can have an infinite set of values, but we have to interpret a final set as time and context changes; a live religion may have absolute values: but the (human) interpretations are very much in flux, since new situation occur.
so there can be no "absolute" set of values.
to be a moral person, in my view, is to balance the good of society and fellow citizens with your family, and act to the better interest of all. And social values are your "theoretical tools" with which you speculate what is the better way to act.
Theoretical tools can however be wrong, or even contradictory, they should be used and develloped, but allways with a grain of salt.
3) on taxation.
"[with taxation in general] the government [Joe Smith] is providing me with certain services in return for my money. "
so what is different here ? taxation is never "fair" , and you allways get less than you paid for. You also cannot (legally) choose not to be taxed, it is an inforced bargain.
but as for your question "what do I get in return?"
I say you may get a healthier, steadier society, where you are less afraid some poor joe will kidnap your daughter for ransom.
My very simplistic model is this:
taking the distribution of wealth as a function, the amount of discontent is a function of it's gradient.
extreme comunism == gradient too low (everyone is equally dissadisfied) => no-one works very hard unnless in a gulag => society will deteriorate.
extreme capitalism == gradient too high , people starving even though food exists, eventually too much discontent creates a revolution.
add to that the subject of inheritance (of furtune, NOT properties
extreme socialism (as in france) == the government redistributes wealth by heavy taxation of inheritance, some widdows have to sell their house (!!) to pay the tax,
extreme capitalism (USA): no taxation of inheritance whatsoever (AFAIK), hence the gaps widen with each generation (what do you need to become a billioner ? be a millioner, much easier when daddy's one.)
( that's what wrong with your assumption: you own what you produce + what father produced, hence the "equity lords" don't need to produce anything, they'll still get richer.)
so my metric is this: what balance will benefit our children the most ? property laws and morals should benefit human beings, not the other way around.
Nobody's afraid of the FBI here (the ones that should will probably be too busy making bombs or serine gas, not posting /. )
... for which /. is a good testing-ground.
what people are afraid of is the oppinion of their fellow readers: today a reader, tommorow a moderator, and he may be arab or israeli or chinese or whatever.
the tirany of the masses
fuck that, posting un-anonimouly.
It all comes to freedom of chice.
I want to be able to choose how my time is spent, and I'm willing to pay for good products.
what you're saying is that by excercising my priorities I don't allow the networks to force-feed me their set of values, thereby hurting them financially.
I realy want the networks to profit; I want them to do this by creating material that has it's own worth, measured by my own valueable money, not by people who wish to poison my mind.
I am completely honest in that: give me the choice, I'll buy it when I think it's good.
" I swear to God, the year that we perfect a method to endlessly duplicate food will be the year in which half of the US population starves to death "
were you joking ? read steinbeck's "grapes of wrath"
there he's talking about the great depression.
the rural parts of america were producing a LOT of food, still many immigrants were starving.
that method you talked about was then called agriculture, and yes, capitalism made people starve.
(not that comunism didn't, BTW)
every few years comes some researcher and suggests asynchronous design and every time the industry ignores him.
the reason is simple : verification.
it is tough enough as it is to verify a synchronous design (exponentially hard, in fact.)
it takes about least 1/2 of development time. (actually more like 2/3 most of the time.)
adding to this the complexity of many time scales and asynchronous tasks and you very quickly reach something which cannot be verified.
moreover, the actual value of asynchrounicity in terms of performance cannot be predicted in advance , so what you're asking for is changing a complete industry to a much riskier method, with no quantitatively defined profit.
cool idea, impractical.
in a fundemental way: it can be detached from
procreation (hence the decline of monogamicity).
the societal repercussions are still felt.
or our relationship with our fathers/grandfathers
how will they change if they are still productive 5 generations down the line ? (might be a change to the best, but there will be change)
can't you see how the invention of print changed the human kind ? or how the invention of gun-powder changed most of the human race from feudal vassals to workers able to unite and be reconned with ? (to some degree ?)
saying nothing has changed in the human condition is largely an emotional statement, not based on a rational appraisal.
either that or no sense of privacy whatsoever.
by which I mean you may behave with your wife, in PRIVATE, in ways which may seem embarassing out-of-context.
"DONT DO EMBARASSING THINGS" indeed.
my mistake !
by mass I ment the energy part of the energy-momentum 4 vector P_0
this in massive objects looks like m(v) = m_0 +
and it is != 0 for photons.
but of course the definition is the eigenvalue of P^\mu * P_\mu operator, which is zero for photons.
dunking meself at sink
its all in the numbers: how fast will they adapt ? is there a difference between different gravity settings (coriolis ...) are there methods to improve the adaptation rate ? what is the difference between children/adults ? between humans/apes/other species ? are there more accurate methods of studying such mental models ?
;)
don't underestimate the seemingly obvious
A neutron star: ... by the degeneracy pressure of neutrons from which it is mainly composed ..."
"comapct stellar object that is supported against collapse
(Oxford Dictionary of physics)
neutron star is not a condensate, but degeneracy pressure is just the quantity (no pun intended) of the E.P.
or in other words: the fermi energy of the star as a whole is what produces your "other force" (degeneracy-pressure) and it exists exactly because the fermions cannot condensate.
using an accurate measuring technique involving mossbaur effect the difference in momentum of a photon rising several meters was actually measured: divide that with g and you get the mass.
an amazingly cool experiment, though somewhat old.
so this means gravity does affect light (though there are much simpler experiments which showed that, as early as the 1920's, I believe)
they just don't have REST-MASS ,and they cannot be at rest.
the 4-vector which describes them is (k,0,0,k) so you see, the mass-energy part is != 0.
i'm not sure about these grav-stars, but the orthodox model is:
..) which have spin 1/2 are fermions, and pauli's E.P. is exactly what holds the neutron star from collapsing to a condensate ...
BEC: occurs only for bosons, it is many bosons sharing the same state.
Pauli exclusion principle: applies only to fermions, it means no more than 2 can fill the same state. it means there can be no "fermion condensate".
a neutron star is made of neutrons (DUH
-- HTH.
I mean, I believe the earth is warming, and I guess this shelf's collapse isn't a good omen, but how bad is it really as compared to the big picture ?
the article sais some parts of antarctica actually got colder, were there parts where ice was added to the continent ?
how much is this a global damage and how much is this a change of the local antarctian climate pattern ?
any links ? (to scientific journals, please, not to popular press)