The second question for the interested reader is how on Earth anyone could achieve any sort of calculation at all on a 6502 what with it being quite the most pathetic excuse for a CPU ever devised by person-kind.
I hope you're kidding. The 6502 helped make the personal computer revolution possible. For a time, it was the lowest price workable 8-bit CPU available, making computing available to the masses. The original Atari game console (the 2600) was based on the 6502, as was the Apple II computer, which really launched the small computer revolution, and the 6510 (a slightly enhanced version of the chip) powered the extremely popular Commodore 64 computer. True, pricier CPUs like the Z-80 and others were a bit more capable, but it was the 6502 that really made home computers affordable in the early days.
It's bad enough that Adobe has been pushing that awful "Th" ligature on anyone who uses their new Adobe Originals OpenType fonts (it ruined the last Harry Potter book for me), but now someone is trying to fuse the letters even more by having them share a common stem? People need to face the fact that our alphabet has pretty much settled into a commonly accepted form (eth and thorn have been banished by all Latin based languages excepting Icelandic), and "improvements" on the alphabet aren't really welcome at this point.
No one is suggesting that this is not a colorless state. It consists, as you suggest, of two quarks and two anti-quarks in a colorless configuration. If it is truly a new state, it should have a different mass than two mesons "stuck together".
Of course after I actually clicked on the article, that made sense. Now I'm wondering how this is different than two mesons "stuck together". Which, according to TFA, it might just turn out to be.
Well, the binding energy (which would be reflected in the mass of the particle) would be very different for two mesons stuck together. In a tetraquark, the four quarks would be bound together with essentially the same energy, whereas with two mesons stuck together, there'd be much stronger binding between the two quarks in a meson than between the mesons. But even that would be interesting, as I'm not sure a state with two mesons stuck together have been observed. (Of course, baryons similarly stuck together have been observed: atomic nuclei.)
I'm wondering how the hell its color charge works, myself.
As I said in the response to the gp, tetraquarks consist of two quarks and two anti-quarks, the same quark content as two mesons. It is therefore possible for them to be arranged in a colorless state, which is of course demanded by QCD. (eg. a tetraquark could consist of a red quark, a blue quark, a red anti-quark, and a blue anti-quark. Of course, these colors are constantly changing as a result of the gluon field, but the tetraquark will remain overall colorless, just as mesons do.)
Would particles like this have fractional electrical charges? +4/3, -4/3, etc?
No. The "tetraquarks" that are being talked about in this article consist of a pair of quarks and a pair of antiquarks. (i.e., the same quark content as two mesons). Quarks have charges of +2/3 or -1/3, while anti-quarks have charges of -2/3 or +1/3. Whenever you put together 2 quarks with 2 anti-quarks, you'll always get whole number charges, i.e. -2, -1, 0, 1, or 2. (Try it.)
I know. I have one myself. But the cool thing about the Pi is you could run whatever software you like, or even write it yourself, and it would be open source. I'm frequently reading about vulnerabilities showing up in off the shelf routers. With a software solution on a Pi, you could patch and upgrade it yourself. And if it didn't offer the features you wanted, you could add them.
I've always thought the Raspberry Pi would be a pontentially much more useful device if it had two Ethernet ports instead of one. It could be a NAT box, Firewall, TOR proxy, or any number of other things. By separating these functions form the computers you're trying to protect, you potentially have a lot more security. Dare I dream there will be a model with two Ethernet ports sometime in the future?
I have been thinking about the claims by Facebook and Google that no government agencies have direct access to their servers, and that is likely quite correct.
What they do most likely have, is a tap point on Facebook's and Google's networks which can then snoop on all traffic between their servers and their users and visa versa then ship it off en masse to the NSA for processing and storage...
But most traffic to and from Facebook and Google now is SSL encrypted. So the questions is, has Google and/or Facebook provided the government with the means to decrypt it?
The Prius does indeed restrict the front seating passenger from using most of its center panel functions when the car is moving, which is really idiotic because it's smart enough to know there is a passenger in the seat (since it will complain loudly when that same passenger doesn't put his seat belt on).
It sucked. With or without any bugs that I have forgotten in the mists of time, the gameplay was horrible, the field of play was idiotic, and it lacked any immersion into the movie storyline. It sucked.
I think you hit onto its key problem, which was immersion into the movie storyline, or any storyline for that matter. Contrast that game to Adventure for the Atari 2600. I really felt I was wandering mazes and entering castles with that one. (Okay, not like a modern first person RPG, obviously, but this was a 2600, after all.)
Contrary to popular perception, JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers when they visit a site.
This statement makes no sense. If you actually know what JavaScript is, you probably know it runs in the web browser. If you don't know what JavaScript is, you don't have any perceptions about it whatsoever.
Ummm, I think that's exactly what they mean. Yes, Javascript runs in the web browser, but the web browser runs on the user's computer, like the article says. When they talk about "user's computer" versus "on the Web site" they mean client side versus server side: i.e. Javascript generally runs client-side while PHP runs server-side.
I visited the site (regulations.gov) that they were all hot and bothered about using Firefox, which contains a free Javascript engine (in fact, all of Firefox is free!) and it worked fine. No requirement for a proprietary version of Javascript at all! This article may be confusing Javascript with ActiveX, but that site doesn't even require ActiveX! I'm not even aware of a non-free version of Javascript. There may be some proprietary extensions to the language that Internet Explorer uses, but the vast majority of sites I visit work just fine with Firefox.
So you wouldn't mind if pictures of you being raped were being looked at on the internet? Fair enough, personally I'd have a problem with that and want it to be a crime to look at them, but maybe that's just me, I have been known to be a little odd.
Well, if he/she is over 18, then it ISN'T illegal. I guess you're under 18, since you seem to think it is illegal for people to look at pictures of you being raped.
Do you ban yourself from New York because of the $3500 fee they charge for filming in certain public buildings? Or is it just developing countries where you demand that all privileges be provided free for the Western tourists?
Does that $3500 fee apply to people who whip out their cell phone and make a short video for Vine?
I know they are stupid and shouldn't be called a news show, but what did they do that requires wiretapping?
It's not what they did; it's what the person talking to them was allegedly doing. The Executive branch was investigating a leak from one of its own, and Fox News was on the receiving end of the information, apparently, so by wiretapping Fox News' communications, they were hoping to find the source of the leak.
What if the user interface lets them shoot everyone else in the foot at no cost to themselves, while accomplishing their task quickly and with ease.
It's a great user interface from the user's point of view, but a really terrible system to have.
As I recall, Microsoft found themselves in that situation once. I think it was with one of the service packs for Windows XP (it might have been SP2; I don't remember which.) In that release, MS removed the capability to do a certain kind of packet sniffing (might have been promiscuous mode, or port scanning, or something like that.) This capability wouldn't have allowed the user to do any harm to their own system, but would have made it easier to possibly invade the privacy of others. The problem is, after that "fix", certain security tools no longer ran under Windows XP, so people that wanted to use those tools either had to run an old version, or install Linux (or BSD, or some other system.) I don't recall if people on the whole thought that was a good thing or a bad thing. It was certainly an inconvenience for network security admins.
The power bill went up and they aren't happy about it. A private company would have almost no recourse in a similar situation.
I'm guessing by your comment that you're not an American citizen, cause if you are, YOU'LL be paying the tax bill. (Where do you think the Federal government gets its money?)
Seriously, the press is all over things like wiretapping, political intrigues, what kind of corn was in the president's bowel movement today (was it GMO corn!?), etc, and seems to think that this kind of 'microscope up the ass' intrusiveness is not only 'news!' But also "the public has a right to KNOW!"
The difference is, the press doesn't have the legal authority to compel telephone companies to provide call records. In fact, I suspect there are privacy laws that would prohibit them from turning that information over to the press. That's why we need to hold the government to a higher standard.
Again, that's another statistic that people quote a lot, and just sort of leave it hanging, without explaining whether they think it's a good or bad thing. It could be either, depending on the reason. It could mean (a) the United States has more crime (which would be a bad thing), or (b) the United States is better at catching and prosecuting criminals which would be a good thing. The size of the prison population, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad: we could reduce our prison population to zero by letting everyone go and closing the prisons, but that might not be such a good thing!
Slashdot Mirror
The second question for the interested reader is how on Earth anyone could achieve any sort of calculation at all on a 6502 what with it being quite the most pathetic excuse for a CPU ever devised by person-kind.
I hope you're kidding. The 6502 helped make the personal computer revolution possible. For a time, it was the lowest price workable 8-bit CPU available, making computing available to the masses. The original Atari game console (the 2600) was based on the 6502, as was the Apple II computer, which really launched the small computer revolution, and the 6510 (a slightly enhanced version of the chip) powered the extremely popular Commodore 64 computer. True, pricier CPUs like the Z-80 and others were a bit more capable, but it was the 6502 that really made home computers affordable in the early days.
It's bad enough that Adobe has been pushing that awful "Th" ligature on anyone who uses their new Adobe Originals OpenType fonts (it ruined the last Harry Potter book for me), but now someone is trying to fuse the letters even more by having them share a common stem? People need to face the fact that our alphabet has pretty much settled into a commonly accepted form (eth and thorn have been banished by all Latin based languages excepting Icelandic), and "improvements" on the alphabet aren't really welcome at this point.
Ok, I'll bite . . . so is there anything that you do like . . . ?
I'm guessing based on his comment, probably C, maybe even some assembler.
No one is suggesting that this is not a colorless state. It consists, as you suggest, of two quarks and two anti-quarks in a colorless configuration. If it is truly a new state, it should have a different mass than two mesons "stuck together".
Of course after I actually clicked on the article, that made sense. Now I'm wondering how this is different than two mesons "stuck together". Which, according to TFA, it might just turn out to be.
Well, the binding energy (which would be reflected in the mass of the particle) would be very different for two mesons stuck together. In a tetraquark, the four quarks would be bound together with essentially the same energy, whereas with two mesons stuck together, there'd be much stronger binding between the two quarks in a meson than between the mesons. But even that would be interesting, as I'm not sure a state with two mesons stuck together have been observed. (Of course, baryons similarly stuck together have been observed: atomic nuclei.)
I'm wondering how the hell its color charge works, myself.
As I said in the response to the gp, tetraquarks consist of two quarks and two anti-quarks, the same quark content as two mesons. It is therefore possible for them to be arranged in a colorless state, which is of course demanded by QCD. (eg. a tetraquark could consist of a red quark, a blue quark, a red anti-quark, and a blue anti-quark. Of course, these colors are constantly changing as a result of the gluon field, but the tetraquark will remain overall colorless, just as mesons do.)
Would particles like this have fractional electrical charges? +4/3, -4/3, etc?
No. The "tetraquarks" that are being talked about in this article consist of a pair of quarks and a pair of antiquarks. (i.e., the same quark content as two mesons). Quarks have charges of +2/3 or -1/3, while anti-quarks have charges of -2/3 or +1/3. Whenever you put together 2 quarks with 2 anti-quarks, you'll always get whole number charges, i.e. -2, -1, 0, 1, or 2. (Try it.)
Um... $50 dollar routers have been done, for a few years now.
I know. I have one myself. But the cool thing about the Pi is you could run whatever software you like, or even write it yourself, and it would be open source. I'm frequently reading about vulnerabilities showing up in off the shelf routers. With a software solution on a Pi, you could patch and upgrade it yourself. And if it didn't offer the features you wanted, you could add them.
I've always thought the Raspberry Pi would be a pontentially much more useful device if it had two Ethernet ports instead of one. It could be a NAT box, Firewall, TOR proxy, or any number of other things. By separating these functions form the computers you're trying to protect, you potentially have a lot more security. Dare I dream there will be a model with two Ethernet ports sometime in the future?
I have been thinking about the claims by Facebook and Google that no government agencies have direct access to their servers, and that is likely quite correct.
What they do most likely have, is a tap point on Facebook's and Google's networks which can then snoop on all traffic between their servers and their users and visa versa then ship it off en masse to the NSA for processing and storage...
But most traffic to and from Facebook and Google now is SSL encrypted. So the questions is, has Google and/or Facebook provided the government with the means to decrypt it?
The Prius does indeed restrict the front seating passenger from using most of its center panel functions when the car is moving, which is really idiotic because it's smart enough to know there is a passenger in the seat (since it will complain loudly when that same passenger doesn't put his seat belt on).
So, who the hell would buy a Prius then?
It sucked. With or without any bugs that I have forgotten in the mists of time, the gameplay was horrible, the field of play was idiotic, and it lacked any immersion into the movie storyline. It sucked.
I think you hit onto its key problem, which was immersion into the movie storyline, or any storyline for that matter. Contrast that game to Adventure for the Atari 2600. I really felt I was wandering mazes and entering castles with that one. (Okay, not like a modern first person RPG, obviously, but this was a 2600, after all.)
Contrary to popular perception, JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers when they visit a site.
This statement makes no sense. If you actually know what JavaScript is, you probably know it runs in the web browser. If you don't know what JavaScript is, you don't have any perceptions about it whatsoever.
Ummm, I think that's exactly what they mean. Yes, Javascript runs in the web browser, but the web browser runs on the user's computer, like the article says. When they talk about "user's computer" versus "on the Web site" they mean client side versus server side: i.e. Javascript generally runs client-side while PHP runs server-side.
I visited the site (regulations.gov) that they were all hot and bothered about using Firefox, which contains a free Javascript engine (in fact, all of Firefox is free!) and it worked fine. No requirement for a proprietary version of Javascript at all! This article may be confusing Javascript with ActiveX, but that site doesn't even require ActiveX! I'm not even aware of a non-free version of Javascript. There may be some proprietary extensions to the language that Internet Explorer uses, but the vast majority of sites I visit work just fine with Firefox.
So you wouldn't mind if pictures of you being raped were being looked at on the internet? Fair enough, personally I'd have a problem with that and want it to be a crime to look at them, but maybe that's just me, I have been known to be a little odd.
Well, if he/she is over 18, then it ISN'T illegal. I guess you're under 18, since you seem to think it is illegal for people to look at pictures of you being raped.
Do you ban yourself from New York because of the $3500 fee they charge for filming in certain public buildings? Or is it just developing countries where you demand that all privileges be provided free for the Western tourists?
Does that $3500 fee apply to people who whip out their cell phone and make a short video for Vine?
I know they are stupid and shouldn't be called a news show, but what did they do that requires wiretapping?
It's not what they did; it's what the person talking to them was allegedly doing. The Executive branch was investigating a leak from one of its own, and Fox News was on the receiving end of the information, apparently, so by wiretapping Fox News' communications, they were hoping to find the source of the leak.
Ultimately, your goal is to get paid. If you don't do what the customer wants, you have failed to achieve your goal.
What if the ability to do X harmed others?
And more to the point: what if those others sued?
What if the user interface lets them shoot everyone else in the foot at no cost to themselves, while accomplishing their task quickly and with ease.
It's a great user interface from the user's point of view, but a really terrible system to have.
As I recall, Microsoft found themselves in that situation once. I think it was with one of the service packs for Windows XP (it might have been SP2; I don't remember which.) In that release, MS removed the capability to do a certain kind of packet sniffing (might have been promiscuous mode, or port scanning, or something like that.) This capability wouldn't have allowed the user to do any harm to their own system, but would have made it easier to possibly invade the privacy of others. The problem is, after that "fix", certain security tools no longer ran under Windows XP, so people that wanted to use those tools either had to run an old version, or install Linux (or BSD, or some other system.) I don't recall if people on the whole thought that was a good thing or a bad thing. It was certainly an inconvenience for network security admins.
The power bill went up and they aren't happy about it. A private company would have almost no recourse in a similar situation.
I'm guessing by your comment that you're not an American citizen, cause if you are, YOU'LL be paying the tax bill. (Where do you think the Federal government gets its money?)
Have a look, it is not hard to see once you know it is there.
You can see it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurion_constellation
Rental cars and out of state license plates are always targeted for crap like that.
True, but I've never paid a parking ticket I've received in an out-of-country rental car and it's never come back to haunt me.
How often do these things fall out of the sky, and does the added revenue offset the lives lost when they do?
Ummm, the whole point of drones is, they're unmanned. There may be loss of money when they fail, but not life.
Seriously, the press is all over things like wiretapping, political intrigues, what kind of corn was in the president's bowel movement today (was it GMO corn!?), etc, and seems to think that this kind of 'microscope up the ass' intrusiveness is not only 'news!' But also "the public has a right to KNOW!"
The difference is, the press doesn't have the legal authority to compel telephone companies to provide call records. In fact, I suspect there are privacy laws that would prohibit them from turning that information over to the press. That's why we need to hold the government to a higher standard.
That only makes sense when you take it for granted that it is normal to have a large prison population. The US is #1 in terms of prisoners per capita.
Again, that's another statistic that people quote a lot, and just sort of leave it hanging, without explaining whether they think it's a good or bad thing. It could be either, depending on the reason. It could mean (a) the United States has more crime (which would be a bad thing), or (b) the United States is better at catching and prosecuting criminals which would be a good thing. The size of the prison population, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad: we could reduce our prison population to zero by letting everyone go and closing the prisons, but that might not be such a good thing!