Any energy contained in a system adds to the inertial and gravitational mass at the rate indicated, and any mass conversion to energy happens according to that equation. Light behaves as if it has mass because light has energy. (I would say light does have mass, but it's not rest mass. Rest mass is what we normally consider as the mass, because rest mass is the only thing we see in everyday circumstances that contains enough energy for the mass to be detectable.)
When a chemical reaction takes place that releases energy, the chemical byproduct is lighter by some minute amount of mass as given by E=mc^2. It's just that the amount is too tiny to measure under normal circumstances. In a normal U235 fission reaction, just under 1% of the mass is converted to energy.
except on the biological level. There's very little that can be done by two people that can't be done by an industrious individual.
Well, only a couple can make a kid (perhaps that's what you meant by "on a biological level"?), and raising one by yourself is no picnic.
Furthermore, you seem to have a strange victim mindset when it comes to gender behavior. Women are more than capable (and routinely) "need" a woman, as opposed to a husband. Is that, then, misandry? Clearly not.
If that's what he meant, he should have said something like "a person doesn't need a mate; they may need an occasional fuck partner,...". He clearly meant specifically that men don't need wives - that's what he said. This is certainly true, but taken in context with a bunch of specific *female* stereotypes, it is obviously intended to be a conclusion of a misogynist manifesto.
Again, none of the post you replied to was misogyny.
I won't tolerate a person wasting my money, or trying to dominate me in a relationship, or using bogus "logic" in an argument. I don't care if they're male or female. I also won't tolerate broad ill-fitting stereotypes, particularly when they're all presented to paint one group in a bad light. It's not gender specific, and I don't ascribe victim status to either (any?) gender. I have the same bitch with the passive aggressive racism that seems to pass muster on slashdot, or with women running down men.
Honestly, the more I look at this, the more I think you have to be trolling me. If a list of stereotypes followed up with a conclusion of how the group to which the stereotype doesn't apply doesn't need the stereotyped group isn't bigotry, what the hell is?
If you are trolling me, congratulations - great job!
Hmm, I suppose it's just possible that I simply don't hang out with women who are much worse than men about being blatantly illogical, dictating to their significant others, and controlling their spending.
Just as I don't hang out with men who abandon their wives each night to handle anything having to do with the family, beat their wives, or spend all their time drunk.
I don't know anyone who's been happy about getting divorced. I know people for whom it was an improvement, but they weren't happy; they were just less unhappy.
None of that excuses the misogynistic, women-as-objects attitude of "a man today does not really need a wife; a man may need a woman occasionally, but that's a completely different deal".
This is a fellow who doesn't think having someone to connect with and share successes and defeats is worth the "pain" of compromise. That's his prerogative.
However, there are two paths for such people: * you have no children and go the way of the dodo (fine if you're OK with that, and you think you'll be OK with it when you're 85 and useless, and everyone you care about is dead) * you run around getting women pregnant and abandoning them to care for your children for you (in which case you're a useless freeloader as well as a piece of crap, and will still have all the regrets)
Hence my comment "I agree that you're nowhere near as free on the iPhone as we were on the C64".
I was correcting misinformation, not disagreeing with the sentiment. And I also don't see in this conversation where selling an app was brought up - this thread is about running code on your device that you wrote.
I think you have to buy the development key ($99) to deploy to a physical phone, but you can write whatever you like and deploy it to your phone. You can deploy to as many as 50 different phones without going through the app store or buying a site license.
I don't remember for sure - you might even be able to deploy to a phone that's physically connected to your Mac without paying anything.
I agree that you're nowhere near as free on the iPhone as we were on the C64, but it's just wrong to say that we can't run any code we like on our phone.
I think it's also worth pointing out that there are huge potential exploits on a phone that weren't there on a C64. E.g. I could distribute a free app that eventually calls a 1-900 number I own, with no modem sticking out the back for you to disconnect.
I have written and distributed an iPhone app (and written C64 apps), so I'm not just spouting BS.
Er, because they can reveal suspicious information about what I do without revealing the exonerating evidence?
Because they can selectively release video of me doing things that are frowned upon in polite society, without everyone realizing that *everyone* does things that are frowned upon in polite society?
Because I can point to things that they do that are just as "suspicious" as the things I do, demonstrating that you need firm *evidence* of wrongdoing rather than using asymmetric information to unfairly smear people?
Please at least take a moment to think about the scenario before making a snide commentary on it.
Or fight it and maintain your sanity and self-respect.
How do you propose you do that? When $0.50 cameras are the size of the buttons on your shirt and cheap network access is everywhere, how do you keep people from videoing and sharing the video?
The cure would be worse than the disease.
Also, my dignity and self-respect aren't contingent on my public actions being secret. I do object to a small group reserving the right to video me, regardless of where or when, for the practical reason that it gives them power over me for no good reason. The same doesn't hold true when everyone does it.
The fact that you can't see who, if anyone, is watching. You glance back & forth, then pick your nose, and you never know 10 people were watching & recording.
That said, this stuff is inevitable. Cameras and high speed networking become ubiquitous and cheap, and privacy anywhere that can be seen by a public space is gone.
Rarely have I read anything more bigoted about women. Well, written since 1990, anyway.
I have been married for 16 years. About 90% of what you're saying is bullshit. Everyone has flaws, and some people have more than their share, and some flaws tend to run in groups. But the correlation is nowhere near as strong as you imply, and frankly some of the flaws you ascribe to women are more applicable to men.
Finally, go *actually talk* to someone who just got divorced. You are obviously just making shit up.
I also want to apologize for the abrupt and antagonistic tone of the first sentence in the GGP post. It's a style I've developed on slashdot, and it's asinine.
I *think* I just what you were saying. Are you arguing that we don't understand the equations that describe the lowest level strong force interactions, or are you saying that we don't know any way to apply the equations to come up with answers for most real world situations?
I think in your rush to insult me, you missed something. What was the result of my thought experiment again? Is one of them you, or both, or neither?
Or do you believe it's physically impossible to carry the experiment out?
I haven't asserted that I expect anyone to live forever. I'm trying to have a discussion about what you would expect to happen in a particular physical system. Your spurious argument against *your straw man of my philosophy* is the only self-indulgent, intellectually vapid point in this discussion.
Hmm, let me amend that a bit. I think you're right, that we don't know how to approximate the forces well. I think we do have a complete model of the underlying interactions that we believe would churn out the right answer if we knew how to apply it correctly.
We have very complex, but what look to be complete, quantum field theories for quantum chromodynamics.
I agree that you have to deal with the fundamental representation rather than our high level concepts. It looks to me as if QCD does that just fine; the problem is just that calculating actual results for more than two interacting fields is computationally intractable using our current model.
Of course, the big caveat here is that while I know the mathematics of basic quantum mechanics in the operator theory formulations, I don't know quantum field theory so most of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics is over my head.
Authority comes from a combination of respect for authority and your ability to physically control me and my circumstances. No matter how much I as an individual deny my government's authority over me, I am still subject to being imprisoned, harmed or killed. Yes, most of that power to harm comes from the respect for authority that others hold in this case, but it is no less a real power over me that has nothing to do with *my* respect for authority.
Moreover, this isn't germane to my actual argument: my argument was against your appeal that I am somehow responsible for the actions of other people, when I took reasonable actions within my power to oppose such action. I am no more responsible for what the people in Washington do, assuming that I voted within my options as best I could, and that I express my opposition to them, than anyone else is.
I cannot choose to restructure my government; I can only participate in efforts to do so. You can pretend to hold me accountable for the actions of others, but I deny that you are "holding me accountable". You are transferring, in the psychological sense.
I should point out that I have actually 'friend'ed you, ShieldW0lf, long ago. I generally want to see your opinions; I just think you're almost dead wrong in "holding people accountable" for the actions of others when those held to account took all reasonable action to stop it.
The government giving the taxpayer's dollars to big, successful businesses so they can have more profit certainly is part of at least *a* problem.
Really I'm just quibbling terminology, though. It sounds as if we have the same opinion as to the rightness of what's being done, and the right thing to do.
I would say the constitution is designed to limit the government so much that it limits the government from doing anything not explicitly allowed in the constitution.
As a friend put it, the constitution is a white list of government powers, not a black list.
At least, that was the intention. If you ask me, we don't follow the constitution in the US.:-(
I arrest your metabolism. I carefully duplicate each of your cells, and use half of the duplicate cells and half of the original cells to build one body, and the other half to build another body. I restart the metabolism of each body.
Is one of them you? Are both of them?
I believe your concept of identity is broken. "You" are a massive string of conscious moments, each of which identifies with other conscious moments that it either is built on (remembers) or will help define (your future). So far, there has only ever been one linear string of these moments, but there's no reason it has to be that way in the future, and no reason to prefer one branch of the tree as being more "you" than another.
If you had lived your life as a series of reconstituted backups (and in a culture of other reconstituted backups), you would consider your future restores just as much "you" as any other future "you".
I'm not knocking the idea of government funded health research, but I can assure you that they already do that. Most biomedical research in this country is funded directly by federal agencies to the tune of several hundred billion (if it's not now up into the trillions collectively) dollars a year.
If that funding is going to companies that then patent the medicine for private profit while artificially inflating the price, that funding is part of the problem, not the solution.
I was struck by the same thing (no simple behavior of strong force) during my 4000 level nuclear physics course in university. At the time, I didn't know QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) existed, and I still don't know much about it.
I note that when people list great unsolved problems in physics, I haven't seen it include "understanding strong force quantitatively".
Do you happen to know if we understand strong force, but the problem is that our model is extremely complex to solve in almost all real world scenarios, or if we just don't understand the low level? QCD should be our explanation of strong force, but I know that the equation we used for calculating which isotopes would be stable looked like a mess concocted to fit mass quantities of data rather than an expression of well understood low level forces.
I think the thing to take away from all of this is that you should never think of options as closed to you. I would say that being a child prodigy gives you a great advantage, if you are willing to take advantage of it. But don't let the judgement of others make you rest on your laurels, or make you decide you've failed before you begin. Go after what you want, and play hard at it, whether people see you as a wunderkind or a dummkopf.
At six years old, he memorized pages out of phone books faster than most people could read them as a party trick. As an adult, he invented modern computer memory architecture, made foundational advances in quantum mechanics, invented the entire field of game theory, and helped work on the nuclear bomb.
As far as I know, the fg doesn't claim a monopoly on the right to print money. There are alternate currencies running around in the US that as far as I know are perfectly legal. They're just not common, because they don't have a big authority asserting that they are viable for a broad category of debts, and because they depend on your faith in whatever entity prints the money.
Slashdot Mirror
E = mc^2 is universal
Any energy contained in a system adds to the inertial and gravitational mass at the rate indicated, and any mass conversion to energy happens according to that equation. Light behaves as if it has mass because light has energy. (I would say light does have mass, but it's not rest mass. Rest mass is what we normally consider as the mass, because rest mass is the only thing we see in everyday circumstances that contains enough energy for the mass to be detectable.)
When a chemical reaction takes place that releases energy, the chemical byproduct is lighter by some minute amount of mass as given by E=mc^2. It's just that the amount is too tiny to measure under normal circumstances. In a normal U235 fission reaction, just under 1% of the mass is converted to energy.
except on the biological level. There's very little that can be done by two people that can't be done by an industrious individual.
Well, only a couple can make a kid (perhaps that's what you meant by "on a biological level"?), and raising one by yourself is no picnic.
Furthermore, you seem to have a strange victim mindset when it comes to gender behavior. Women are more than capable (and routinely) "need" a woman, as opposed to a husband. Is that, then, misandry? Clearly not.
If that's what he meant, he should have said something like "a person doesn't need a mate; they may need an occasional fuck partner, ...". He clearly meant specifically that men don't need wives - that's what he said. This is certainly true, but taken in context with a bunch of specific *female* stereotypes, it is obviously intended to be a conclusion of a misogynist manifesto.
Again, none of the post you replied to was misogyny.
I won't tolerate a person wasting my money, or trying to dominate me in a relationship, or using bogus "logic" in an argument. I don't care if they're male or female. I also won't tolerate broad ill-fitting stereotypes, particularly when they're all presented to paint one group in a bad light. It's not gender specific, and I don't ascribe victim status to either (any?) gender. I have the same bitch with the passive aggressive racism that seems to pass muster on slashdot, or with women running down men.
Honestly, the more I look at this, the more I think you have to be trolling me. If a list of stereotypes followed up with a conclusion of how the group to which the stereotype doesn't apply doesn't need the stereotyped group isn't bigotry, what the hell is?
If you are trolling me, congratulations - great job!
Hmm, I suppose it's just possible that I simply don't hang out with women who are much worse than men about being blatantly illogical, dictating to their significant others, and controlling their spending.
Just as I don't hang out with men who abandon their wives each night to handle anything having to do with the family, beat their wives, or spend all their time drunk.
I don't know anyone who's been happy about getting divorced. I know people for whom it was an improvement, but they weren't happy; they were just less unhappy.
None of that excuses the misogynistic, women-as-objects attitude of "a man today does not really need a wife; a man may need a woman occasionally, but that's a completely different deal".
This is a fellow who doesn't think having someone to connect with and share successes and defeats is worth the "pain" of compromise. That's his prerogative.
However, there are two paths for such people:
* you have no children and go the way of the dodo (fine if you're OK with that, and you think you'll be OK with it when you're 85 and useless, and everyone you care about is dead)
* you run around getting women pregnant and abandoning them to care for your children for you (in which case you're a useless freeloader as well as a piece of crap, and will still have all the regrets)
Hence my comment "I agree that you're nowhere near as free on the iPhone as we were on the C64".
I was correcting misinformation, not disagreeing with the sentiment. And I also don't see in this conversation where selling an app was brought up - this thread is about running code on your device that you wrote.
I think you have to buy the development key ($99) to deploy to a physical phone, but you can write whatever you like and deploy it to your phone. You can deploy to as many as 50 different phones without going through the app store or buying a site license.
I don't remember for sure - you might even be able to deploy to a phone that's physically connected to your Mac without paying anything.
I agree that you're nowhere near as free on the iPhone as we were on the C64, but it's just wrong to say that we can't run any code we like on our phone.
I think it's also worth pointing out that there are huge potential exploits on a phone that weren't there on a C64. E.g. I could distribute a free app that eventually calls a 1-900 number I own, with no modem sticking out the back for you to disconnect.
I have written and distributed an iPhone app (and written C64 apps), so I'm not just spouting BS.
Er, because they can reveal suspicious information about what I do without revealing the exonerating evidence?
Because they can selectively release video of me doing things that are frowned upon in polite society, without everyone realizing that *everyone* does things that are frowned upon in polite society?
Because I can point to things that they do that are just as "suspicious" as the things I do, demonstrating that you need firm *evidence* of wrongdoing rather than using asymmetric information to unfairly smear people?
Please at least take a moment to think about the scenario before making a snide commentary on it.
Or fight it and maintain your sanity and self-respect.
How do you propose you do that? When $0.50 cameras are the size of the buttons on your shirt and cheap network access is everywhere, how do you keep people from videoing and sharing the video?
The cure would be worse than the disease.
Also, my dignity and self-respect aren't contingent on my public actions being secret. I do object to a small group reserving the right to video me, regardless of where or when, for the practical reason that it gives them power over me for no good reason. The same doesn't hold true when everyone does it.
The fact that you can't see who, if anyone, is watching. You glance back & forth, then pick your nose, and you never know 10 people were watching & recording.
That said, this stuff is inevitable. Cameras and high speed networking become ubiquitous and cheap, and privacy anywhere that can be seen by a public space is gone.
Get used to it or it'll drive you nuts.
Rarely have I read anything more bigoted about women. Well, written since 1990, anyway.
I have been married for 16 years. About 90% of what you're saying is bullshit. Everyone has flaws, and some people have more than their share, and some flaws tend to run in groups. But the correlation is nowhere near as strong as you imply, and frankly some of the flaws you ascribe to women are more applicable to men.
Finally, go *actually talk* to someone who just got divorced. You are obviously just making shit up.
I also want to apologize for the abrupt and antagonistic tone of the first sentence in the GGP post. It's a style I've developed on slashdot, and it's asinine.
I *think* I just what you were saying. Are you arguing that we don't understand the equations that describe the lowest level strong force interactions, or are you saying that we don't know any way to apply the equations to come up with answers for most real world situations?
I think in your rush to insult me, you missed something. What was the result of my thought experiment again? Is one of them you, or both, or neither?
Or do you believe it's physically impossible to carry the experiment out?
I haven't asserted that I expect anyone to live forever. I'm trying to have a discussion about what you would expect to happen in a particular physical system. Your spurious argument against *your straw man of my philosophy* is the only self-indulgent, intellectually vapid point in this discussion.
Hmm, let me amend that a bit. I think you're right, that we don't know how to approximate the forces well. I think we do have a complete model of the underlying interactions that we believe would churn out the right answer if we knew how to apply it correctly.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0954-3899/31/8/E01 looked like a good overview of the issues.
and I think you're wrong.
We have very complex, but what look to be complete, quantum field theories for quantum chromodynamics.
I agree that you have to deal with the fundamental representation rather than our high level concepts. It looks to me as if QCD does that just fine; the problem is just that calculating actual results for more than two interacting fields is computationally intractable using our current model.
Of course, the big caveat here is that while I know the mathematics of basic quantum mechanics in the operator theory formulations, I don't know quantum field theory so most of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics is over my head.
Authority comes from a combination of respect for authority and your ability to physically control me and my circumstances. No matter how much I as an individual deny my government's authority over me, I am still subject to being imprisoned, harmed or killed. Yes, most of that power to harm comes from the respect for authority that others hold in this case, but it is no less a real power over me that has nothing to do with *my* respect for authority.
Moreover, this isn't germane to my actual argument: my argument was against your appeal that I am somehow responsible for the actions of other people, when I took reasonable actions within my power to oppose such action. I am no more responsible for what the people in Washington do, assuming that I voted within my options as best I could, and that I express my opposition to them, than anyone else is.
I cannot choose to restructure my government; I can only participate in efforts to do so. You can pretend to hold me accountable for the actions of others, but I deny that you are "holding me accountable". You are transferring, in the psychological sense.
I should point out that I have actually 'friend'ed you, ShieldW0lf, long ago. I generally want to see your opinions; I just think you're almost dead wrong in "holding people accountable" for the actions of others when those held to account took all reasonable action to stop it.
The government giving the taxpayer's dollars to big, successful businesses so they can have more profit certainly is part of at least *a* problem.
Really I'm just quibbling terminology, though. It sounds as if we have the same opinion as to the rightness of what's being done, and the right thing to do.
I would say the constitution is designed to limit the government so much that it limits the government from doing anything not explicitly allowed in the constitution.
As a friend put it, the constitution is a white list of government powers, not a black list.
At least, that was the intention. If you ask me, we don't follow the constitution in the US. :-(
Thought experiment:
I arrest your metabolism. I carefully duplicate each of your cells, and use half of the duplicate cells and half of the original cells to build one body, and the other half to build another body. I restart the metabolism of each body.
Is one of them you? Are both of them?
I believe your concept of identity is broken. "You" are a massive string of conscious moments, each of which identifies with other conscious moments that it either is built on (remembers) or will help define (your future). So far, there has only ever been one linear string of these moments, but there's no reason it has to be that way in the future, and no reason to prefer one branch of the tree as being more "you" than another.
If you had lived your life as a series of reconstituted backups (and in a culture of other reconstituted backups), you would consider your future restores just as much "you" as any other future "you".
Not to mention the Trollish straw-man assumption that each individual has the power to restructure their government.
I'm not knocking the idea of government funded health research, but I can assure you that they already do that. Most biomedical research in this country is funded directly by federal agencies to the tune of several hundred billion (if it's not now up into the trillions collectively) dollars a year.
If that funding is going to companies that then patent the medicine for private profit while artificially inflating the price, that funding is part of the problem, not the solution.
I was struck by the same thing (no simple behavior of strong force) during my 4000 level nuclear physics course in university. At the time, I didn't know QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics) existed, and I still don't know much about it.
I note that when people list great unsolved problems in physics, I haven't seen it include "understanding strong force quantitatively".
Do you happen to know if we understand strong force, but the problem is that our model is extremely complex to solve in almost all real world scenarios, or if we just don't understand the low level? QCD should be our explanation of strong force, but I know that the equation we used for calculating which isotopes would be stable looked like a mess concocted to fit mass quantities of data rather than an expression of well understood low level forces.
Yesterday I had mod points.
I think the thing to take away from all of this is that you should never think of options as closed to you. I would say that being a child prodigy gives you a great advantage, if you are willing to take advantage of it. But don't let the judgement of others make you rest on your laurels, or make you decide you've failed before you begin. Go after what you want, and play hard at it, whether people see you as a wunderkind or a dummkopf.
Read up on John Von Neumann.
At six years old, he memorized pages out of phone books faster than most people could read them as a party trick. As an adult, he invented modern computer memory architecture, made foundational advances in quantum mechanics, invented the entire field of game theory, and helped work on the nuclear bomb.
I agree on all counts. However...
As far as I know, the fg doesn't claim a monopoly on the right to print money. There are alternate currencies running around in the US that as far as I know are perfectly legal. They're just not common, because they don't have a big authority asserting that they are viable for a broad category of debts, and because they depend on your faith in whatever entity prints the money.