This is true but one of the great things about a superconductor is that R (and thus the power dissipated) goes to zero. So while it is difficult to dissipate heat in space, you won't be building up heat in the superconductors themselves.
The problem with this opinion is that in the long run the government IS on the line for ANY security failure. Privatizing may have many good side effects (e.g. less intrusive procedures and lower costs) but at the end of the day I think the airlines want the government to be fully on the hook for security failures. Before 9/11 (and thus during it) security was privatized. It failed. Airlines were able to push the blame for THEIR security failure onto the public sector. I do not see any reason why they would want to take on this risk. RIght now it is cheaper in both the long and short for the airlines (i.e. we all, as tax payers, pay not just those who fly) and you won't get a privatized solution until the airlines see a benefit from it.
While agree with you that pennies are useless, I must disagree with your opinion on paper 1 dollar bills. According to Planet Money, a great NPR podcast, the cost of a dollar bill vs a dollar coin are not a cut and dry as you make it out to be. I cannot find the reference to which podcast it was on but they interviewed someone at the mint who said that the lifetime cost of a coin dollar vs. a bill was about equal with improvements to paper quality and price. The main reason I don't want dollar coins, or many coins at all, is that they are cumbersome to deal with.
Degrees do not a scientist make. A scientist practices their art. Having a degree in a science does not mean one uses that degree. It is similar to who someone trained in law cannot claim to be a lawyer unless they have passed the Bar exam and are currently in good standing with the Bar. If you look at the titles claimed by the authors of the WSJ piece you will note that many are not practicing scientist and many do not have degrees relevant to the discussion.
I think you missed geekoid's point. As the article of the WSJ article proclaims:
Con Artist Starred in Sting That Cost Google Millions
All of the information about executives knowing something is affirmed by a single self confessed con artist. What I think is fair to ask for is more confirmation of these affirmations by someone who is not a known liar or would otherwise gain from divulging such information.
While I agree with the majority of your post, your method for determining single-path-routing is flawed. The routing takes the "best" path, in many cases the "best" path is so much better than any other that it is essentially static. However, if that connection were to go down then other routes would start being used.
Have these improved in the past 3 years? I started using S/MIME certs for every email address I have and tried to push my very tech suave friends to do so as well but hit the brick wall of Gmail. At the time there were no seamless solutions for verifying signatures or, encrypting and decrypting emails. One reason that many of these people use Gmail on the web is because they have multiple machines with varying levels of access (i.e. they cannot install software on some), so at best any solution with a browser plugin is going to break their ability to read encrypted emails on some of the machines they do.
I am at a loss to understand why Google has not implemented simple S/MIME checks with the standard cert authorities. This alone would push awareness of the benefits of S/MIME to a largely technologically inclined group. Ideally I would love to see them implement an encrypted space where you store your keys on Google's servers which cannot be read by Google and use client side encrypt/decrypt methods. Somehow I don't think they are going to do it though as it would reduce the flow of info about their users.
I don't get your point. Afganistan is also land locked and lo and behold the US sent aircraft carriers to support the operations there see this articles.
Are you trying to subliminally link this to Apple for some reason? The company name is Carrier IQ. No clue what iCarrier is and Google only finds 4 pages with both terms so I am betting that iCarrier is not the name of their software product.
The Carrier IQ software is a cross platform problem that seems to be associated with the carriers and headset makers, including both Android and Apple devices.
Many prescription drug plans do not give you any such right (to choose your pharmacy). Assuming that people can make choices about their health care in this day an age is not reasonable. While some can afford to choose their own insurance the vast majority of Americans either get coverage through their work where they have no choice or get coverage from the state.
You may want to read this ProPublica article on the subject. They are not simply lowering prices. They are exerting their market share to prohibit others from competing with them.
This is addressed in the paper. The 1987a neutrinos have energies in the 1-20 MeV range while the OPERA result is for neutrinos in the 3-100 GeV range. That is around three orders of magnitude higher than the 1987a result. Page 3 section 1 paragraph 3 covers this (for some reason Slashdot won't let me block quote it): http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v2 Superluminal neutrinos must have energy dependent velocities.
The reason for the response is that any reasonable amount of googling or going to Wikipedia would have provided clear answers to this question. Furthermore, the people telling him not to bother are doing so on reasonable ground: the radiation levels would have to be much higher or in his house to cause any effect.
We are talking about an cell phone company. You think Verizon makes more money from advertisers than they do from paying "users?" That seems like a rather strong assertion given that I haven't heard of many people being inundated with ads on the Verizon network which is what would be required to equal the cost per month a user pays.
Sure if you are talking about the likes of Google, Hulu, or any other advertising driven business then I would agree with you but not in this case.
Wait, so you link to articles about an accelerated loss of the ozone layer in the Arctic due to cold weather then say nothing came of it in the comments to an article discussing the first hole in the Arctic ozone layer? Using your timeline this seems like a rather reasonable progression of events but the tone of your post makes it sound like this is par for the course.
Holes in the ozone layer can have very significant effects on humans in regions were those holes exists. The ozone layer protects the surface of the Earth from some of the UV flux emitted by the sun. UV light is known to cause skin cancer in humans. Having a hole above a populated area of the world (unlike where the Antarctic hole usually forms) can have lasting effects on those populations. These effects may not be obvious for years due to the varying timelines for cancer development.
Please just try to address information objectively before imposing your beliefs on it. Be critical of any argument put forward and prepared to change your view point to fit new facts. Skimming an article and asserting it is the same old thing when it is blatantly not serves you and those who listen to you poorly.
Try:
2 cm/c in picoseconds
I think "ps" is a confused SI abbreviation so they cannot assume they know what you want (although they should be able to from context).
Your circuit isn't 732 km long. Keeping things in time on this scale, in of and of itself is difficult. GPS ticks do not provide this accuracy so you have to sync the clocks to each GPS tick.
This works fine as long as you don't visit an EV site. You must delete the cert, and make changes to your system on OS X. This is not an easy fix for most people. Please find more info here
Supersymmetry was not proposed to provide a possible dark matter particle. Supersymmetry grew out of attempts to reduce the needed parameters of the standard model, e.g. to explain the weak scale. It was only later that it was noticed that the lightest supersymmetric particles could make ideal dark matter particles. Furthermore, current LHC results most certainly do NOT rule out supersymmetry. The measurements have just reduced the allowed phase space for certain realizations of the theory.
Finally, experimentalists never have the last word on whether a theory is truly dead or not. Theorist have shown time and time again that they are capable of coming up with novel ways of saving a theory. Only when the theory requires something which is then falsified does a theory die (or it becomes too complex relative to other theories). That has not happened. Even the BBC article includes lots of hedging.
Why not charge per bit instead of per bit per month. Then I would agree with you, but if they want to charge a fee per bit per month then we are just paying them to keep service low. Per bit we are paying them to improve bandwidth. If we use more they WANT to make it easier for us to use even more. But as it stands they have no interest in investing in the infrastructure, only in removing 'offending' customers who are trying to get the most out of what they are being charged for.
Unless one wants to enter the scientific field they cannot "[look] objectively at the evidence." This is the fallacy of modern mass media, that there are only two sides and you can learn all you need to know from the sound bites and popular articles. No layperson will spend the time needed to become an expert on the subject unless: 1) they can profit from it 2) they don't have to work. Following the scientific consensus instead of making up ones own theory from a far from complete knowledge base is just prudent. The mass media does not (I say this as a scientist who recognizes we are partly at fault for this) accurately portray scientific results. One MUST read the literature in the field, know the basics of the field, and have the wherewithal to put it all together if you want to "[look] objectively at the evidence."
I believe they posted this because CMS and ATLAS both reported seeing a 2.5 sigma bump today in a variety of venues. It is not in the peer reviewed portion of the journal only in the news section.
The problem with what you are saying is that, while it is true JWST took funds from other worthy projects, those funds will NOT be available for other worthy projects after JWST is cut. This is just taking money out of astrophysical research.
It should also be noted that funding agencies essentially insist that cost estimates be understated so they can more easily be sold to the purse holders. This is a great detriment to science in the long run but the situation as it stands. Finally expecting a space telescope using technology not yet developed to be 'on budget' is rather comical. You cannot know what it will cost to overcome as yet un-confronted challenges.
Slashdot Mirror
This is true but one of the great things about a superconductor is that R (and thus the power dissipated) goes to zero. So while it is difficult to dissipate heat in space, you won't be building up heat in the superconductors themselves.
Anyone wondering where this is from it is from the play Major Barbara by George Bernard Shaw. You can find the full script on Gutenberg.
The problem with this opinion is that in the long run the government IS on the line for ANY security failure. Privatizing may have many good side effects (e.g. less intrusive procedures and lower costs) but at the end of the day I think the airlines want the government to be fully on the hook for security failures. Before 9/11 (and thus during it) security was privatized. It failed. Airlines were able to push the blame for THEIR security failure onto the public sector. I do not see any reason why they would want to take on this risk. RIght now it is cheaper in both the long and short for the airlines (i.e. we all, as tax payers, pay not just those who fly) and you won't get a privatized solution until the airlines see a benefit from it.
While agree with you that pennies are useless, I must disagree with your opinion on paper 1 dollar bills. According to Planet Money, a great NPR podcast, the cost of a dollar bill vs a dollar coin are not a cut and dry as you make it out to be. I cannot find the reference to which podcast it was on but they interviewed someone at the mint who said that the lifetime cost of a coin dollar vs. a bill was about equal with improvements to paper quality and price. The main reason I don't want dollar coins, or many coins at all, is that they are cumbersome to deal with.
Degrees do not a scientist make. A scientist practices their art. Having a degree in a science does not mean one uses that degree. It is similar to who someone trained in law cannot claim to be a lawyer unless they have passed the Bar exam and are currently in good standing with the Bar. If you look at the titles claimed by the authors of the WSJ piece you will note that many are not practicing scientist and many do not have degrees relevant to the discussion.
All of the information about executives knowing something is affirmed by a single self confessed con artist. What I think is fair to ask for is more confirmation of these affirmations by someone who is not a known liar or would otherwise gain from divulging such information.
While I agree with the majority of your post, your method for determining single-path-routing is flawed. The routing takes the "best" path, in many cases the "best" path is so much better than any other that it is essentially static. However, if that connection were to go down then other routes would start being used.
Have these improved in the past 3 years? I started using S/MIME certs for every email address I have and tried to push my very tech suave friends to do so as well but hit the brick wall of Gmail. At the time there were no seamless solutions for verifying signatures or, encrypting and decrypting emails. One reason that many of these people use Gmail on the web is because they have multiple machines with varying levels of access (i.e. they cannot install software on some), so at best any solution with a browser plugin is going to break their ability to read encrypted emails on some of the machines they do.
I am at a loss to understand why Google has not implemented simple S/MIME checks with the standard cert authorities. This alone would push awareness of the benefits of S/MIME to a largely technologically inclined group. Ideally I would love to see them implement an encrypted space where you store your keys on Google's servers which cannot be read by Google and use client side encrypt/decrypt methods. Somehow I don't think they are going to do it though as it would reduce the flow of info about their users.
I don't get your point. Afganistan is also land locked and lo and behold the US sent aircraft carriers to support the operations there see this articles.
Are you trying to subliminally link this to Apple for some reason? The company name is Carrier IQ. No clue what iCarrier is and Google only finds 4 pages with both terms so I am betting that iCarrier is not the name of their software product.
The Carrier IQ software is a cross platform problem that seems to be associated with the carriers and headset makers, including both Android and Apple devices.
Many prescription drug plans do not give you any such right (to choose your pharmacy). Assuming that people can make choices about their health care in this day an age is not reasonable. While some can afford to choose their own insurance the vast majority of Americans either get coverage through their work where they have no choice or get coverage from the state.
You may want to read this ProPublica article on the subject. They are not simply lowering prices. They are exerting their market share to prohibit others from competing with them.
This is addressed in the paper. The 1987a neutrinos have energies in the 1-20 MeV range while the OPERA result is for neutrinos in the 3-100 GeV range. That is around three orders of magnitude higher than the 1987a result. Page 3 section 1 paragraph 3 covers this (for some reason Slashdot won't let me block quote it):
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v2
Superluminal neutrinos must have energy dependent velocities.
The reason for the response is that any reasonable amount of googling or going to Wikipedia would have provided clear answers to this question. Furthermore, the people telling him not to bother are doing so on reasonable ground: the radiation levels would have to be much higher or in his house to cause any effect.
We are talking about an cell phone company. You think Verizon makes more money from advertisers than they do from paying "users?" That seems like a rather strong assertion given that I haven't heard of many people being inundated with ads on the Verizon network which is what would be required to equal the cost per month a user pays.
Sure if you are talking about the likes of Google, Hulu, or any other advertising driven business then I would agree with you but not in this case.
All GPS satellites are in inclined orbits. Your statement only holds if you expect them to be in non-inclined orbits.
Wait, so you link to articles about an accelerated loss of the ozone layer in the Arctic due to cold weather then say nothing came of it in the comments to an article discussing the first hole in the Arctic ozone layer? Using your timeline this seems like a rather reasonable progression of events but the tone of your post makes it sound like this is par for the course.
Holes in the ozone layer can have very significant effects on humans in regions were those holes exists. The ozone layer protects the surface of the Earth from some of the UV flux emitted by the sun. UV light is known to cause skin cancer in humans. Having a hole above a populated area of the world (unlike where the Antarctic hole usually forms) can have lasting effects on those populations. These effects may not be obvious for years due to the varying timelines for cancer development.
Please just try to address information objectively before imposing your beliefs on it. Be critical of any argument put forward and prepared to change your view point to fit new facts. Skimming an article and asserting it is the same old thing when it is blatantly not serves you and those who listen to you poorly.
Try: 2 cm/c in picoseconds I think "ps" is a confused SI abbreviation so they cannot assume they know what you want (although they should be able to from context).
Your circuit isn't 732 km long. Keeping things in time on this scale, in of and of itself is difficult. GPS ticks do not provide this accuracy so you have to sync the clocks to each GPS tick.
This works fine as long as you don't visit an EV site. You must delete the cert, and make changes to your system on OS X. This is not an easy fix for most people. Please find more info here
Supersymmetry was not proposed to provide a possible dark matter particle. Supersymmetry grew out of attempts to reduce the needed parameters of the standard model, e.g. to explain the weak scale. It was only later that it was noticed that the lightest supersymmetric particles could make ideal dark matter particles. Furthermore, current LHC results most certainly do NOT rule out supersymmetry. The measurements have just reduced the allowed phase space for certain realizations of the theory.
Finally, experimentalists never have the last word on whether a theory is truly dead or not. Theorist have shown time and time again that they are capable of coming up with novel ways of saving a theory. Only when the theory requires something which is then falsified does a theory die (or it becomes too complex relative to other theories). That has not happened. Even the BBC article includes lots of hedging.
Why not charge per bit instead of per bit per month. Then I would agree with you, but if they want to charge a fee per bit per month then we are just paying them to keep service low. Per bit we are paying them to improve bandwidth. If we use more they WANT to make it easier for us to use even more. But as it stands they have no interest in investing in the infrastructure, only in removing 'offending' customers who are trying to get the most out of what they are being charged for.
Unless one wants to enter the scientific field they cannot "[look] objectively at the evidence." This is the fallacy of modern mass media, that there are only two sides and you can learn all you need to know from the sound bites and popular articles. No layperson will spend the time needed to become an expert on the subject unless: 1) they can profit from it 2) they don't have to work. Following the scientific consensus instead of making up ones own theory from a far from complete knowledge base is just prudent. The mass media does not (I say this as a scientist who recognizes we are partly at fault for this) accurately portray scientific results. One MUST read the literature in the field, know the basics of the field, and have the wherewithal to put it all together if you want to "[look] objectively at the evidence."
I believe they posted this because CMS and ATLAS both reported seeing a 2.5 sigma bump today in a variety of venues. It is not in the peer reviewed portion of the journal only in the news section.
The problem with what you are saying is that, while it is true JWST took funds from other worthy projects, those funds will NOT be available for other worthy projects after JWST is cut. This is just taking money out of astrophysical research.
It should also be noted that funding agencies essentially insist that cost estimates be understated so they can more easily be sold to the purse holders. This is a great detriment to science in the long run but the situation as it stands. Finally expecting a space telescope using technology not yet developed to be 'on budget' is rather comical. You cannot know what it will cost to overcome as yet un-confronted challenges.