I think one of the String Theories will prevail in the end. The topology of those theories is elegant. Unfortunately I do not think that any short of a PhD will have a hope of truley understanding the theories. Not because they are complicated but because the spacial concepts are so foriegn to our 3 dimensional minds.
Re:Still not a justification for ISS
on
Testing Relativity
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You are correct, this could be done with 3 small satilites with one having a telescoping arm to mount the interferometer on one of them.
This might be off topic too but it seems that you are of the opinion that a manned space station is a bad idea. If so, I think you are wrong. A manned space station will be usefull for alot more than this one experiment.
That is what they are looking for. A simpler explaination then the Standard Theory:) Have you sutdied that theory in depth? It is enough to make your head explode. At least with the 11-dimensional theories the math makes some sense:)
Let's have a little poll.
on
Testing Relativity
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Which theory do you think will win?
Seriouslly, this is really exciting. As an avid Physics buff I am really looking forward to the outcome.
The private sector needs a way to efficiently screen event participants and/or job applicants. I think there should be a way to appeal your being listed in the terrorism database.
I agree that responsibility for your firearm is of paramount importance. You say that the pro-Gun lobbies have ignored the responsibility issue in favor of defending the right of the people to own assault weapons. The truth is they have been attempting to address the safty and responsibility issues and thier stance on assault rifles in justified.
The NRA has several programs that champion the idea of responsible gun ownership. They have also produced a series of educational materials that attempt to teach children respect for firearms and what to do if one is found. Fire safty courses for children have proven effective in reducing fire accidents involving children. Why not the same thing with guns. The ultra-liberal teachers in our education system today have refused to incorperate these materials into thier lesson plans. It's like the ultra-conservatives telling Sex Ed teachers to only teach abstinance.
The problem is that the right to keep and bare arms was not put in place just to allow us to protect ourselves from criminals. The founding fathers believed in the right of the citizenry to overthrow an oppressive government. The Second Amendment gives us the right to arm ourselves as a protection against the government becomeing too oppressive. How are we supposed to protect ourselves against an oppresive government when we are not allowed to own weaponry equal to that used by our government. I know I sound like one of those wacky ultra-conservative Freemen or something but that is not my intention.
The NRA and other pro-Gun lobbies have taken a "if you give them an inch they will take a mile" stance. They believe that if they give in on one issue, like mandetory licensing, they open the doors for tons of other controls that could actually take our rights away. The Anti-Gun lobbies have as much as said that that is thier plans. They have stated that their goal is the complete removal of guns from the hands of law abiding citizens and that they will get their step by step. The NRA's response is, don't let them take thier first step.
You are asking that a company who's entire business is providing filtering software to somehow see that selling said software to a willing buyer is aiding and abetting oppression and censorship. Also, I reiterate my point, the internet would not even be in Saudi Arabia if it were not for this filtering software. Of the top of my head I can think of at least three ways to circumvent these filter mechanisms provided there are those outside the country willing to help. So why don't you setup a VPN server and let the people of Saudi Arabia know that they have an avenue to escape the tyranny of the King.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the majority of the people in Saudi Arabia are happy with the prosperity that the Kingdom has brought. Did you know that the "oppressed" people of Saudi Arabia are free to own businesses, have free college educations available to them, free dental and health care and live in an almost completely crime free society? Sure, to some people, cutting a thief's hand off is barbaric but on the other hand, it does not happen very often since very few people steal.
As for women, I do not believe that women should be treated any differently from men, but they do, and most of the women there are quite happy with the situation. This is not to say that there are not women that would like to be free and, in my mind, those women should have that opportunity.
As for the bombing in Afghanistan, which is what I guess you were refereeing to in your comment. We are not attempting to change Afghanistan's culture, we are trying to kill Osama bin Laden. That is entirely different.
Your point that corporations are to blame for the suppression of information on the internet is based on some false assumptions. First, you assume that what is good for westerners in necessarily good for Arabs. Second, you assume that corporations have an obligation beyond the pursuit of profit. Third, you seem to think that the NET exists because people like you want it to.
I lived in Saudi Arabia from the age of 9 until I was 20 years old. My father lived there for an additional 7 years. That is from 1977 to 1997. We know Arabs and they are some of the most loving, gracious, and hospitable people in the world. As long as you don't try to change their culture. They are happy to do business with outsiders but the will not allow them to attempt to change their society. You and I agree, freedom is the natural state of humans. Oppression is not moral. However, if you demand that these people to change overnight then they will react violently. The internet would not even be in Saudi Arabia today if it were not for this filtering technology. And keep in mind, it is just technology, the determined mind can find a way around it.
Corporations exist solely for the production of profit for their shareholders. There is no other reason for their existence. A corporation is like a farm that is owned by several people, they will not continue to operate the farm if it does not produce crops. Likewise corporations. The very fact that a corporation has chosen the internet filtering sector as its market means that the people investing in the corporation and the employees working for it have no compunction against this technology and railing against their attempts to perpetrate that business is useless.
The NET in it's current form would not exist if it were not for "corporatism". I was on the internet in 1993. I had a shell account, no fancy PPP or SLIP connection, and got my first taste of the Internet's power. But the internet didn't really turn into what it is today until corporations decided it would be a good way to make money by providing internet access to "the masses" and then selling on the internet. Most of the internet users out there got access so that they could access information, mostly provided for profit, that they wanted.
Idealism is a nice thing as long as it stays out of the real world. As soon as you attempt to apply your idealistic ideas to the real world they break down. No, your morals are not necessarily right for everyone and No, corporations have no other obligation than to make money, and No the internet has not defined purpose, only the purposes we use it for. It is a tool and not an end.
Slashdot Mirror
I think one of the String Theories will prevail in the end. The topology of those theories is elegant. Unfortunately I do not think that any short of a PhD will have a hope of truley understanding the theories. Not because they are complicated but because the spacial concepts are so foriegn to our 3 dimensional minds.
This might be off topic too but it seems that you are of the opinion that a manned space station is a bad idea. If so, I think you are wrong. A manned space station will be usefull for alot more than this one experiment.
That is what they are looking for. A simpler explaination then the Standard Theory :) Have you sutdied that theory in depth? It is enough to make your head explode. At least with the 11-dimensional theories the math makes some sense :)
Which theory do you think will win? Seriouslly, this is really exciting. As an avid Physics buff I am really looking forward to the outcome.
The private sector needs a way to efficiently screen event participants and/or job applicants. I think there should be a way to appeal your being listed in the terrorism database.
The NRA has several programs that champion the idea of responsible gun ownership. They have also produced a series of educational materials that attempt to teach children respect for firearms and what to do if one is found. Fire safty courses for children have proven effective in reducing fire accidents involving children. Why not the same thing with guns. The ultra-liberal teachers in our education system today have refused to incorperate these materials into thier lesson plans. It's like the ultra-conservatives telling Sex Ed teachers to only teach abstinance.
The problem is that the right to keep and bare arms was not put in place just to allow us to protect ourselves from criminals. The founding fathers believed in the right of the citizenry to overthrow an oppressive government. The Second Amendment gives us the right to arm ourselves as a protection against the government becomeing too oppressive. How are we supposed to protect ourselves against an oppresive government when we are not allowed to own weaponry equal to that used by our government. I know I sound like one of those wacky ultra-conservative Freemen or something but that is not my intention.
The NRA and other pro-Gun lobbies have taken a "if you give them an inch they will take a mile" stance. They believe that if they give in on one issue, like mandetory licensing, they open the doors for tons of other controls that could actually take our rights away. The Anti-Gun lobbies have as much as said that that is thier plans. They have stated that their goal is the complete removal of guns from the hands of law abiding citizens and that they will get their step by step. The NRA's response is, don't let them take thier first step.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the majority of the people in Saudi Arabia are happy with the prosperity that the Kingdom has brought. Did you know that the "oppressed" people of Saudi Arabia are free to own businesses, have free college educations available to them, free dental and health care and live in an almost completely crime free society? Sure, to some people, cutting a thief's hand off is barbaric but on the other hand, it does not happen very often since very few people steal.
As for women, I do not believe that women should be treated any differently from men, but they do, and most of the women there are quite happy with the situation. This is not to say that there are not women that would like to be free and, in my mind, those women should have that opportunity.
As for the bombing in Afghanistan, which is what I guess you were refereeing to in your comment. We are not attempting to change Afghanistan's culture, we are trying to kill Osama bin Laden. That is entirely different.
I lived in Saudi Arabia from the age of 9 until I was 20 years old. My father lived there for an additional 7 years. That is from 1977 to 1997. We know Arabs and they are some of the most loving, gracious, and hospitable people in the world. As long as you don't try to change their culture. They are happy to do business with outsiders but the will not allow them to attempt to change their society. You and I agree, freedom is the natural state of humans. Oppression is not moral. However, if you demand that these people to change overnight then they will react violently. The internet would not even be in Saudi Arabia today if it were not for this filtering technology. And keep in mind, it is just technology, the determined mind can find a way around it.
Corporations exist solely for the production of profit for their shareholders. There is no other reason for their existence. A corporation is like a farm that is owned by several people, they will not continue to operate the farm if it does not produce crops. Likewise corporations. The very fact that a corporation has chosen the internet filtering sector as its market means that the people investing in the corporation and the employees working for it have no compunction against this technology and railing against their attempts to perpetrate that business is useless.
The NET in it's current form would not exist if it were not for "corporatism". I was on the internet in 1993. I had a shell account, no fancy PPP or SLIP connection, and got my first taste of the Internet's power. But the internet didn't really turn into what it is today until corporations decided it would be a good way to make money by providing internet access to "the masses" and then selling on the internet. Most of the internet users out there got access so that they could access information, mostly provided for profit, that they wanted.
Idealism is a nice thing as long as it stays out of the real world. As soon as you attempt to apply your idealistic ideas to the real world they break down. No, your morals are not necessarily right for everyone and No, corporations have no other obligation than to make money, and No the internet has not defined purpose, only the purposes we use it for. It is a tool and not an end.