I still think there is a far simpler solution to this problem. Simply chose 1 in 10 people that _can_ vote. That is, 90% of Facebook members simply wouldn't be allowed to vote on any specific topic, on average they would have to try 10 different ones (or more) before they were allowed to vote.
That would make organized vote mobs very difficult to arrange, which is what we're trying to accomplish. Yet this version would not require any special effort on the part of the users, or the system. No setup either.
This isn't the first time this has happened. I don't know why this particular event is getting so much attention.
Because the LHC has been created, and funded, largely by "selling" the Higgs as a super-special "God particle".
In fact it's nothing at all different than any one of the other particles in the standard model that were predicted and later found. Well, one difference, there are no other particles left in the SM, so if you want to have a job, you have to make sure someone thinks it's worth spending a few billion on.
Just tell them that an article on the Wiki will be the #1 Google hit on that topic within a week. Then tell them that pointers back to their own papers will gain more eyeballs, and thus more funding.
I've used this several times. It opens doors. That's how I got the picture of the:
The NDP will have to support Wind, and I think the Libs would be committing political suicide if they don't too. I think we could see a quick-pass bill on this issue.
The question is whether or not they will add language about UBB as well. All three parties have clearly stated their position on this, that UBB is bad.
We might be seeing a very interesting bill in the next week or so.
"You can't even pretend to know much about string theory without some very advanced work in quantum mechanics AND general relativity, which means knowing an awful lot of very, very difficult calculus."
I disagree. Certainly working in the field requires this, but understanding it at a basic level just as certainly doesn't.
There's a slide in the show called "What enterprise customers are telling us..." The part after the... is apparently "while buying products from other people".
Compare and contrast with SJ's "they don't know what they want" concepts.
It seems to demonstrate that the vast majority of mobiles users have and use the FB app. Now one might complain that WinP7 users just don't use the FB app as much... but that's a problem for MS, because that's what the entire upgrade was about, getting _those_ users.
Which is too bad, there are some nice things about WP7. Not that I'd ever buy one, but you know...
Their AF consists of about 1650 MiG-19s (Nanchang CJ-6), 500 MiG-21s (Shenyang and Chengdu J-7 and Guizhou JJ-7). These are all hopelessly outdated and completely and utterly useless in combat against any modern (1980s) aircraft. It is not clear how many of these are operationally ready, nor how many
In 2007, they had about 70 Su-27's (Shenyang J-11). These are roughly equal to other 1980s fighters like the F-16 and F-15. They are no match at all for modern designs.
For contrast, in 1987 the Iraqi AF had about 500 aircraft, much the same mix.
> So you know exactly what was in the the paint that the F-117 used?
Who cares? Do you think the J-20 uses "exactly" that formulation?
The story is still BS. _All_ the articles you find trace directly back to the original story in "blic". If you read that story, you'll find that it's 100% heresay. This guy remembers, that guy heard. None of the people in the article actually saw any of this happen, and they all hedge their words. Its bogus.
The F-117 is a decades old design made of aluminum and off-the-shelf components. The only thing you need to canvas to build a F-117 is Google. This story is complete rubbish.
Yet another example of/. increasing anti-Chinese story bias.
Overall, the US mechanisms for innovation... CHINA!! BE AFRAID!... demand based economies and access to capital... CHINA!! CHINA CHINA CHINA!... centers of excellence like Silicon Valley that show no signs of slowing... CHINA! CHINA HAS PEOPLE THAT CAN USE COMPUTERS! OH NOES!
If I wanted to listen to Fox News, I'd listen to Fox News.
It seems that everyone here is perfectly OK with the Chinese making our salad shooters, but god forbid we get them to build something that's only a decade old.
Considering all the technologies involved are routinely licensed around the world (for instance, to Canada and the UK) and no one says a word, the conclusion is inescapable that this is nothing more than the latest Yellow Peril.
> ITER [wikipedia.org] would like to disagree with you there.
Having written a significant portion of the articles on fusion on the wiki, let me pull a Woody Allen and just say you don't know what you're talking about.
There is little doubt that ITER will indeed reach the levels of ignition, net positive energy output, and continuous burn. However, the cost of doing so is enormous. So large that such a machine will never, ever, pay for itself. Sure, that might change if electricity prices go up, but only to the point where you'd have to be using candles for lighting.
There are some faint glimmers of hope, like the ST and fast ignition work, but we've been down this road before (IEC, levitrons, spheromaks, literally hundreds of ideas) that turned out not to work when you scaled them up.
As someone who _does_ have a good understanding of the issues, let me just say that I do not expect to live to see commercial fusion power.
> When the electron was discovered it was thought to be absolutely worthless
That's completely untrue. It was well understood at the time that the discovery of the electron, and its properties, would allow all sorts of useful results. After all, we use electricity.
> Discovering the higgs will fill in the biggest hole in the standard model
So what? We don't use Higgstricity. Nor do we use topquarkicity. We discovered the top quark just about two decades ago, and its effect on the world has been pretty much zero.
As others have, and will, point out, there is a lot of spin-off work. However, it is important to note that that's largely mined out too. Its not that nothing good comes out of these projects, just that the return on investment is rapidly flatlining. There's a difference between those two statements, and it's a very important one.
> it's a fantastic research facility that funds some of the greatest scientists on Earth
> The high-water mark of literal 'bang for the buck' physics research seems to have been the H-bomb in the 1950s
no no no no no! The transistor!
> that it's theoretically increasingly unlikely for us to ever see the Standard Model invalidated, let alone any hope of engineering applications from itl
That is precisely the problem. The SM is "mined out" in the same way all those California oil wells are. However, the funding machine (which, if anything, is the really interesting thing about CERN) continues to grind on under its own momentum.
What's worse is the possibility that LHC finds Higgs. If it does, HEP is basically finished. We have no idea how to build a machine to test anything over and above SM.
That said, if LHC fails to find the Higgs then, that is very interesting indeed. Sort of like the MMX. However, the MMX was built from scraps by a couple of guys in a basement and upset all of physics forever. I doubt that LHC will produce anything so dramatic.
So your sniper is asleep when they take the boat. Finding an armed man, they kill everyone onboard, and take the high quality rifle to replace their 40 year old barely functional AK knockoffs.
So now you need 24/7 snipers. Say 8 hour shifts, and now you have three more crew than you used to. That's roughly doubling the compliment. That ain't cheap.
I'm not saying I agree with this logic, but that's the logic.
Slashdot Mirror
I still think there is a far simpler solution to this problem. Simply chose 1 in 10 people that _can_ vote. That is, 90% of Facebook members simply wouldn't be allowed to vote on any specific topic, on average they would have to try 10 different ones (or more) before they were allowed to vote.
That would make organized vote mobs very difficult to arrange, which is what we're trying to accomplish. Yet this version would not require any special effort on the part of the users, or the system. No setup either.
This isn't the first time this has happened. I don't know why this particular event is getting so much attention.
Because the LHC has been created, and funded, largely by "selling" the Higgs as a super-special "God particle".
In fact it's nothing at all different than any one of the other particles in the standard model that were predicted and later found. Well, one difference, there are no other particles left in the SM, so if you want to have a job, you have to make sure someone thinks it's worth spending a few billion on.
Just tell them that an article on the Wiki will be the #1 Google hit on that topic within a week. Then tell them that pointers back to their own papers will gain more eyeballs, and thus more funding.
I've used this several times. It opens doors. That's how I got the picture of the:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot_solar_cell
In what is now the #1 article on the topic. And the best article too, IMHO.
All this means is that they have a couple of weeks to arrange for someone to buy Oracom's debt.
Given they are operational, I suspect the banks will back it. With a little Tory strong-arming perhaps.
The NDP will have to support Wind, and I think the Libs would be committing political suicide if they don't too. I think we could see a quick-pass bill on this issue.
The question is whether or not they will add language about UBB as well. All three parties have clearly stated their position on this, that UBB is bad.
We might be seeing a very interesting bill in the next week or so.
"You can't even pretend to know much about string theory without some very advanced work in quantum mechanics AND general relativity, which means knowing an awful lot of very, very difficult calculus."
I disagree. Certainly working in the field requires this, but understanding it at a basic level just as certainly doesn't.
"more theory than fact"
That is a non-sequitur.
*coff* Uhh, ever looked at a ski lift? I'll bet the cable alone costs more than the same distance of rail, levelled for equal weight capacity.
There's a slide in the show called "What enterprise customers are telling us..." The part after the ... is apparently "while buying products from other people".
Compare and contrast with SJ's "they don't know what they want" concepts.
> WebOS and Android will take the market because soon enough someone will be running it on a toaster.
Yeah, because everyone I know wakes up and wonders why their toaster doesn't run Android.
I wonder what the margins would be?
> Keep in mind that at the moment, WP7 doesn't offer encrypted connections to Exchange
Yeah, what's up with this? Seriously. I don't know about you, but this would be the first feature I'd put in a new phone, even if it's not from MS.
> It will arrive on the Verizon network after the iPhone shows up
And how did they manage THIS trick? Apple had lock-in with AT&T for three years, and they still couldn't beat them to Verizon? Geez!
> AT&T call drops & quality issues
Hey, speaking of, I just had my 3rd call drop on Rogers. I'm no longer in the "it's AT&Ts fault" camp. At least not completely.
Wow, nice link.
It seems to demonstrate that the vast majority of mobiles users have and use the FB app. Now one might complain that WinP7 users just don't use the FB app as much... but that's a problem for MS, because that's what the entire upgrade was about, getting _those_ users.
Which is too bad, there are some nice things about WP7. Not that I'd ever buy one, but you know...
> China can field 2,000 stealth aircraft?
They cannot.
Their AF consists of about 1650 MiG-19s (Nanchang CJ-6), 500 MiG-21s (Shenyang and Chengdu J-7 and Guizhou JJ-7). These are all hopelessly outdated and completely and utterly useless in combat against any modern (1980s) aircraft. It is not clear how many of these are operationally ready, nor how many
In 2007, they had about 70 Su-27's (Shenyang J-11). These are roughly equal to other 1980s fighters like the F-16 and F-15. They are no match at all for modern designs.
For contrast, in 1987 the Iraqi AF had about 500 aircraft, much the same mix.
> So you know exactly what was in the the paint that the F-117 used?
Who cares? Do you think the J-20 uses "exactly" that formulation?
The story is still BS. _All_ the articles you find trace directly back to the original story in "blic". If you read that story, you'll find that it's 100% heresay. This guy remembers, that guy heard. None of the people in the article actually saw any of this happen, and they all hedge their words. Its bogus.
The F-117 is a decades old design made of aluminum and off-the-shelf components. The only thing you need to canvas to build a F-117 is Google. This story is complete rubbish.
Yet another example of /. increasing anti-Chinese story bias.
Overall, the US mechanisms for innovation... CHINA!! BE AFRAID! ... demand based economies and access to capital... CHINA!! CHINA CHINA CHINA! ... centers of excellence like Silicon Valley that show no signs of slowing... CHINA! CHINA HAS PEOPLE THAT CAN USE COMPUTERS! OH NOES!
If I wanted to listen to Fox News, I'd listen to Fox News.
30 seconds of Googling demonstrated to me that this screw is already long in the tooth in the medical field.
But that doesn't make for good copy, nor a way to sell your kits.
It seems that everyone here is perfectly OK with the Chinese making our salad shooters, but god forbid we get them to build something that's only a decade old.
Considering all the technologies involved are routinely licensed around the world (for instance, to Canada and the UK) and no one says a word, the conclusion is inescapable that this is nothing more than the latest Yellow Peril.
> ISS: €100 billion
Indeed, the cutting starts there.
> A much more efficient system would be for them to just pay a fee like any other fee-for-service system
That's exactly how it does work. Email the Diamond Light Source and arrange to ship a crystal to them.
> ITER [wikipedia.org] would like to disagree with you there.
Having written a significant portion of the articles on fusion on the wiki, let me pull a Woody Allen and just say you don't know what you're talking about.
There is little doubt that ITER will indeed reach the levels of ignition, net positive energy output, and continuous burn. However, the cost of doing so is enormous. So large that such a machine will never, ever, pay for itself. Sure, that might change if electricity prices go up, but only to the point where you'd have to be using candles for lighting.
There are some faint glimmers of hope, like the ST and fast ignition work, but we've been down this road before (IEC, levitrons, spheromaks, literally hundreds of ideas) that turned out not to work when you scaled them up.
As someone who _does_ have a good understanding of the issues, let me just say that I do not expect to live to see commercial fusion power.
> When the electron was discovered it was thought to be absolutely worthless
That's completely untrue. It was well understood at the time that the discovery of the electron, and its properties, would allow all sorts of useful results. After all, we use electricity.
> Discovering the higgs will fill in the biggest hole in the standard model
So what? We don't use Higgstricity. Nor do we use topquarkicity. We discovered the top quark just about two decades ago, and its effect on the world has been pretty much zero.
As others have, and will, point out, there is a lot of spin-off work. However, it is important to note that that's largely mined out too. Its not that nothing good comes out of these projects, just that the return on investment is rapidly flatlining. There's a difference between those two statements, and it's a very important one.
> it's a fantastic research facility that funds some of the greatest scientists on Earth
So then it's welfare? In the US?
...or a completely pointless program that has turned up nothing useful for decades?
No really, are you happy that we now know the top quark mass to the 4th decimal? If I gave you millions of dollars, would you buy that number?
> The high-water mark of literal 'bang for the buck' physics research seems to have been the H-bomb in the 1950s
no no no no no! The transistor!
> that it's theoretically increasingly unlikely for us to ever see the Standard Model invalidated, let alone any hope of engineering applications from itl
That is precisely the problem. The SM is "mined out" in the same way all those California oil wells are. However, the funding machine (which, if anything, is the really interesting thing about CERN) continues to grind on under its own momentum.
What's worse is the possibility that LHC finds Higgs. If it does, HEP is basically finished. We have no idea how to build a machine to test anything over and above SM.
That said, if LHC fails to find the Higgs then, that is very interesting indeed. Sort of like the MMX. However, the MMX was built from scraps by a couple of guys in a basement and upset all of physics forever. I doubt that LHC will produce anything so dramatic.
So your sniper is asleep when they take the boat. Finding an armed man, they kill everyone onboard, and take the high quality rifle to replace their 40 year old barely functional AK knockoffs.
So now you need 24/7 snipers. Say 8 hour shifts, and now you have three more crew than you used to. That's roughly doubling the compliment. That ain't cheap.
I'm not saying I agree with this logic, but that's the logic.