why do these things have to be so large in the first place. Anyone in the know point me to a good explanation of how these work?
Here for some vague info on how a spectrometer works. Basically you have to turn the stuff to gas (so you need a heating unit), then you have to ionize it, then you shove the whole lot into a magnetic field of known strength.
Since the degree of deflection of a particle when it passes through the magnetic field is proportional to a) charge and b) mass of the particle, what you end up measuring is a series of peaks at certain points on a graph. This info (when compared to charts of known compounds) lets you know the composition of the substance you tested. That's the way it was at the beginning.
Then someone said why don't we just stream the particles from a homogenized sample, and vary the strength of the magnetic field. That way we simplify our detection part of the equipmet.
This is a very general idea of the principles, obviously you could spend years learning all the techniques, and I haven't been in a lab for a while. At the beginning all we could work out was the types of elements involved in a compound, and empirical formulae. The separation and ionization techniques have been refined somewhat, and now we can compare different molecules instead of atoms, which helps a great deal in figuring out what we're looking at.
Getting back to your question, the unit invariably has to be a bit bulky since you need a) a powerful magnet and b) an adequate distance to "catch" all the particles you are interested in.
The question still remains, when option C is taken, where does the guilt come from?
Guilt comes from knowing that I have intentionally done someone harm and caused suffering. Only a psychopath anti-social doesn't give a damn about other people. Atheists are not psychopaths. Guilt comes from compassion and empathy with the other person - not right or wrong.
I have NO qualms cutting someone open in order to save their life - even if this causes them a great deal of pain in an extreme situation where anaestesia isn't available. Even if by doing so I put their life at significant risk - if the possible benefits outweight the risks. Because I know that my goal is to HELP. If I did everything right, but the patient died - then I did everything I could, and I don't feel guilty. He was going to die anyway. I tried to help, increase the odds, but it wasn't enough.
But inflicting pain for pain's sake - I don't get my kicks that way. Religion has nothing to do with it.
If guilt is the punishment and contentment is the reward, what biological fracture dictates the line between punishment and reward?
You're the one who introduced punishment and reward, not me. Then you ask me questions in those terms. That "bait and switch" doesn't make for a logical argument. I have no time for you if what you are going to do is argue with yourself to "prove" your point.
I'm curious where your moral philosophy came from. Who taught you what right and wrong was?
There is no "right" and "wrong". There's only my behaviour, and the consequences of my decisions. An example: I could rape a sedated patient - there's nothing to stop me. However if I did that I would a) be breaking my hippocratic oath and not be the physician I'd like to think that I am b) probably get caught, go to jail, lose the respect of my children, my license to practice, etc c) have to live with guilt after seeing the impact of my action on that person's life. On the whole, it just ain't worth it. "Right and Wrong" doesn't come into it, see?
It's just a rational form of selfishness. One would argue that the selfish person goes for the quick reward/advantage/gain. Not true. The SMART person goes for the long term reward. In this game, the reward is self preservation.
To say you can randomly mutate something orders of magnitude more complex than an o/s, and add globs of functionality to it over huge expanses of time without increasing functional entropy is absurd.
What, you mean like turning a spermatozooa into a human being, that sort of increase in complexity and functionality?
Now I see that not only do you fail to understand evolution, you also fail to understand thermodynamics. You are perfectly allowed to create more complex systems. But this requires energy, which you have to get from somewhere.
Think about how your body can mantain itself and repair itself pretty well for up to 80 years or so. This also flies into the face of entropy, until you consider all the energy you've used to do that - energy you've gotten from the food you ate. And in return you took complex structures and broke them down into simple molecules all your life. The fact that you flush them down the toilet doesn't mean they cease to exist.
Random mutations happen - get this - RANDOMLY. When they happen to favour the organism, we call them "evolution". When they happen to harm the organism, we call them "disease". The only bias is the one we ourselves bring to the table by focusing on one side of the coin and forgetting about the other. Mutations don't care if they help the organism or not. They just happen. Only when they kill the organism in utero or before reproduction, the chance of them being passed on to another generation is ZERO. That's what favours the increase in complexity, instead of a decrease.
Evolution (between species) is lacking such evidence.
The fact that YOU can't see the evidence due to a lack of education doesn't mean it's not there. There is evidence in the fossil records. There is evidence in our biochemistry. There is evidence in microbiology. The mere fact that such a thing as a "gene" exists is evidence.
I agree... Newton wasn't famous because he said "oh look, stuff falls to the ground". Everyone knows THAT. He was famous for that (k M1 M2)/d^2 thingie...(among others)
that's only if you believe in Islam. That's why they still ride camels over there.
Someone needs a quick history lesson. Islamic faith is not at all against education - in fact at one point if you wanted to be on the cutting edge in some fields (mathematics, medicine) you had to study in Persia. The bit about keeping people in the 9th century has to do with politics and power, rather than religion.
Religion is what got the United States on its feet
Members of this American religion will be glad to hear that. I thought it was a LACK of state religion and religious persecution that encouraged the colonization of the US.
religion provides morals and helps to keep the people more in line.
You are suggesting that atheists are "immoral" and out of line. Stop right there, because it's incorrect. I'm an atheist and an extremely moral person. I don't break the law (except for the odd speeding ticket). My work as a physician regularly puts me in a position of having great power over others (because of sedatives during a procedure, due to psychological problems in a patient, or simply the trust in the physician-patient relationship) and yet I've never abused that power. An immoral person would. In fact, if you look at history, I could argue that a great deal of sexual abuse has been commited by religious people...
If man were naturally good, there'd be no need for religion
You seem to have bought into that argument. Too bad you can't see that religion is only another form of politics. Do what I say and get a "reward". Do something I don't approve of, and you get a "punishment". This is beautiful since no one can deny the existence of these rewards and punishments (and if they try, they get ridiculed and asked to "prove" that it's NOT true), and they don't cost a thing.
Not only that, if someone dares to contradict my "teachings", I can bring enormous social pressure to bear. I can even have that person killed with the APPROVAL of the masses. Religion is GREAT! There's NO downside for a religious leader - except perhaps having to pretend to practice what you preach once in a while.
I agree that religion supports law since it's a form of mind control. However a society with strict adherence to the law and completely lacking in freedom discourages the acquisition of knowledge - as you yourself pointed out when you incorrectly attributed this a generalized islamic discouragement of education.
Simple. Redefine the universe's parameters such that intellectual masturbation is no longer necessary, and place yourself in the appropriate set. You're a mathematician. You can do ANYTHING. Duh!
Among the surprises: IT didn't necessarily make projects faster but it did dramatically increase productivity by facilitating multitasking
So people were able to do more, and yet the projects don't necessarily get completed faster. And this is supposedly an increase in productivity? I don't care if you look busier. I want the job DONE.
would a 0 day flaw allow someone to remotely connect and launch strikes?
Hmmm lets have a look at my email:
u|2g3n+ M3es54ge
Urgent message eh? Ok... (opens letter)
Dear Sir,
This letter is to inform you that you have won our "$500 to Avoid a Tomahawk" contest. As you know, our firm has recently acquired several Perry and Ticonderoga class ships from the US Navy, and we have decided to give you this SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY to participate in our contest. The rules are simple. Send $500 US by Western Union to the following account: xxx xxxxxxx xxx to avoid receiving a SPECIAL GIFT, in the form of a Tomahawk Cruise Missile. Remember, we can deliver this gift right into your bedroom, and we guarantee satisfaction. Your prize will be delivered at midnight (UTC) tomorrow, unless we receive your order to cancel.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is coming out with a robot that throws chairs.
No word from Mr. Ballmer yet if he's going to sue for patent infringement or not...
Vista does not run well on boat anchors.
Until you lower them in the water. Then you get to see how they fixed the sleep/shut down problems...
why do these things have to be so large in the first place. Anyone in the know point me to a good explanation of how these work?
Here for some vague info on how a spectrometer works. Basically you have to turn the stuff to gas (so you need a heating unit), then you have to ionize it, then you shove the whole lot into a magnetic field of known strength.
Since the degree of deflection of a particle when it passes through the magnetic field is proportional to a) charge and b) mass of the particle, what you end up measuring is a series of peaks at certain points on a graph. This info (when compared to charts of known compounds) lets you know the composition of the substance you tested. That's the way it was at the beginning.
Then someone said why don't we just stream the particles from a homogenized sample, and vary the strength of the magnetic field. That way we simplify our detection part of the equipmet.
This is a very general idea of the principles, obviously you could spend years learning all the techniques, and I haven't been in a lab for a while. At the beginning all we could work out was the types of elements involved in a compound, and empirical formulae. The separation and ionization techniques have been refined somewhat, and now we can compare different molecules instead of atoms, which helps a great deal in figuring out what we're looking at.
Getting back to your question, the unit invariably has to be a bit bulky since you need a) a powerful magnet and b) an adequate distance to "catch" all the particles you are interested in.
What does a viola have to do with anything?
It's how drunk Frenchmen say "voila"...
Intellectual Right? Is that like the Religious Left?
Yep, it's what you get after all the religious people leave...
licenced the Tricorder (R) name from Paramount
;)
All they have to do is call it a Tri-quarter and viola, problem solved
I think your (very amusing, btw) scenario with the dogsex actually touches on the truth of the matter
The argument is bollocks. I can present the same argument to prove my point.
"Son, it is wrong to try to have sexual relations with the dog."
"Why?"
"Because it's wrong. In the book of Deuteronomy (or wherever) it clearly says that he that lies with an animal as unto a woman is an abomination."
"Perhaps the Bible is flawed dad. How do we know that I am incorrect, and the Bible is correct?"
"Trust in the teachings of our Lord"
"But if the dog keeps licking me, surely it's because God wants me to give him affection"
"Perhaps the Lord is tempting you son, you must be strong and resist!"
"Who am I to oppose God's will, Dad? Surely God wants me to sleep with this dog, perhaps it's part of his plan?"
"Son, you're not sleeping it the dog. The Bible says you must respect your parents. If you don't, I'm going to beat the crap out of you!"
etc...
See? Complete BS.
The question still remains, when option C is taken, where does the guilt come from?
Guilt comes from knowing that I have intentionally done someone harm and caused suffering. Only a psychopath anti-social doesn't give a damn about other people. Atheists are not psychopaths. Guilt comes from compassion and empathy with the other person - not right or wrong.
I have NO qualms cutting someone open in order to save their life - even if this causes them a great deal of pain in an extreme situation where anaestesia isn't available. Even if by doing so I put their life at significant risk - if the possible benefits outweight the risks. Because I know that my goal is to HELP. If I did everything right, but the patient died - then I did everything I could, and I don't feel guilty. He was going to die anyway. I tried to help, increase the odds, but it wasn't enough.
But inflicting pain for pain's sake - I don't get my kicks that way. Religion has nothing to do with it.
If guilt is the punishment and contentment is the reward, what biological fracture dictates the line between punishment and reward?
You're the one who introduced punishment and reward, not me. Then you ask me questions in those terms. That "bait and switch" doesn't make for a logical argument. I have no time for you if what you are going to do is argue with yourself to "prove" your point.
I'm curious where your moral philosophy came from. Who taught you what right and wrong was?
There is no "right" and "wrong". There's only my behaviour, and the consequences of my decisions. An example: I could rape a sedated patient - there's nothing to stop me. However if I did that I would a) be breaking my hippocratic oath and not be the physician I'd like to think that I am b) probably get caught, go to jail, lose the respect of my children, my license to practice, etc c) have to live with guilt after seeing the impact of my action on that person's life. On the whole, it just ain't worth it. "Right and Wrong" doesn't come into it, see?
It's just a rational form of selfishness. One would argue that the selfish person goes for the quick reward/advantage/gain. Not true. The SMART person goes for the long term reward. In this game, the reward is self preservation.
To say you can randomly mutate something orders of magnitude more complex than an o/s, and add globs of functionality to it over huge expanses of time without increasing functional entropy is absurd.
What, you mean like turning a spermatozooa into a human being, that sort of increase in complexity and functionality?
Now I see that not only do you fail to understand evolution, you also fail to understand thermodynamics. You are perfectly allowed to create more complex systems. But this requires energy, which you have to get from somewhere.
Think about how your body can mantain itself and repair itself pretty well for up to 80 years or so. This also flies into the face of entropy, until you consider all the energy you've used to do that - energy you've gotten from the food you ate. And in return you took complex structures and broke them down into simple molecules all your life. The fact that you flush them down the toilet doesn't mean they cease to exist.
Random mutations happen - get this - RANDOMLY. When they happen to favour the organism, we call them "evolution". When they happen to harm the organism, we call them "disease". The only bias is the one we ourselves bring to the table by focusing on one side of the coin and forgetting about the other. Mutations don't care if they help the organism or not. They just happen. Only when they kill the organism in utero or before reproduction, the chance of them being passed on to another generation is ZERO. That's what favours the increase in complexity, instead of a decrease.
the medical scientists use "emergence" more often.
;)
As a clinician I can say that we use "evolution" daily, to indicate a patient's progress
Evolution (between species) is lacking such evidence.
The fact that YOU can't see the evidence due to a lack of education doesn't mean it's not there. There is evidence in the fossil records. There is evidence in our biochemistry. There is evidence in microbiology. The mere fact that such a thing as a "gene" exists is evidence.
You fail it, thanks for playing.
Of course, once it's VRSA, you're just plain fucked.
;)
You could always try linezolid... until "that evolution thing" catches up to us again
The theory of gravity explains that phenomenon
I agree... Newton wasn't famous because he said "oh look, stuff falls to the ground". Everyone knows THAT. He was famous for that (k M1 M2)/d^2 thingie...(among others)
Point is , no one really understands why sometimes light acts as a wave and sometimes as a particle.
To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:
The answer is easy. It has to do with Quantum. Once you figure out the state of that damned cat before opening the box, the answer will be obvious...
I realize the populace here at Slashdot is 99% atheist
I'm Pastafarian you insensitive clod!
that's only if you believe in Islam. That's why they still ride camels over there.
Someone needs a quick history lesson. Islamic faith is not at all against education - in fact at one point if you wanted to be on the cutting edge in some fields (mathematics, medicine) you had to study in Persia. The bit about keeping people in the 9th century has to do with politics and power, rather than religion.
Religion is what got the United States on its feet
Members of this American religion will be glad to hear that. I thought it was a LACK of state religion and religious persecution that encouraged the colonization of the US.
religion provides morals and helps to keep the people more in line.
You are suggesting that atheists are "immoral" and out of line. Stop right there, because it's incorrect. I'm an atheist and an extremely moral person. I don't break the law (except for the odd speeding ticket). My work as a physician regularly puts me in a position of having great power over others (because of sedatives during a procedure, due to psychological problems in a patient, or simply the trust in the physician-patient relationship) and yet I've never abused that power. An immoral person would. In fact, if you look at history, I could argue that a great deal of sexual abuse has been commited by religious people...
If man were naturally good, there'd be no need for religion
You seem to have bought into that argument. Too bad you can't see that religion is only another form of politics. Do what I say and get a "reward". Do something I don't approve of, and you get a "punishment". This is beautiful since no one can deny the existence of these rewards and punishments (and if they try, they get ridiculed and asked to "prove" that it's NOT true), and they don't cost a thing.
Not only that, if someone dares to contradict my "teachings", I can bring enormous social pressure to bear. I can even have that person killed with the APPROVAL of the masses. Religion is GREAT! There's NO downside for a religious leader - except perhaps having to pretend to practice what you preach once in a while.
I agree that religion supports law since it's a form of mind control. However a society with strict adherence to the law and completely lacking in freedom discourages the acquisition of knowledge - as you yourself pointed out when you incorrectly attributed this a generalized islamic discouragement of education.
How will I intellectually masturbate?
Simple. Redefine the universe's parameters such that intellectual masturbation is no longer necessary, and place yourself in the appropriate set. You're a mathematician. You can do ANYTHING. Duh!
You mean there was even MORE math after "Integration by Parts"? Sheesh you guys need to get a life :P
I think you imagined the "i"
;)
"i" is a classic example of why you mathematicians and we programmers will NEVER get along
int i;
for(i= 0; i MAX; i++){}
Surely you appreciate the difference between latency and throughput?
:)
Surely you appreciate the relationship between packet collisions and latency, how they are independent of bandwidth, and how they affect throughput?
Nice thought, but it doesn't say that anywhere.
He was busy multitasking...
3) Become really, really famous.
I propose:
3) Become really, really famous while at the same time guaranteeing you will never ever have sex with a conscious human female.
Among the surprises: IT didn't necessarily make projects faster but it did dramatically increase productivity by facilitating multitasking
So people were able to do more, and yet the projects don't necessarily get completed faster. And this is supposedly an increase in productivity? I don't care if you look busier. I want the job DONE.
would a 0 day flaw allow someone to remotely connect and launch strikes?
Hmmm lets have a look at my email:
u|2g3n+ M3es54ge
Urgent message eh? Ok... (opens letter)
Dear Sir,
This letter is to inform you that you have won our "$500 to Avoid a Tomahawk" contest. As you know, our firm has recently acquired several Perry and Ticonderoga class ships from the US Navy, and we have decided to give you this SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY to participate in our contest. The rules are simple. Send $500 US by Western Union to the following account: xxx xxxxxxx xxx to avoid receiving a SPECIAL GIFT, in the form of a Tomahawk Cruise Missile. Remember, we can deliver this gift right into your bedroom, and we guarantee satisfaction. Your prize will be delivered at midnight (UTC) tomorrow, unless we receive your order to cancel.
Again, congratulations!
d3 1337
Just beware of the International Dateline.
Don't fight wars where they observe Daylight Savings Time.
And don't forget to reboot your ship every 49 days or so...