The less involved a human is with controlling the behavior of a machine, the less you can bank upon are his/her human responses to situations to apply to the machine's behavior. That's legitimately scary.
That depends. In the US alone there are 30,000 accidental deaths caused by humans driving vehicles each year and about 300 deliberate deaths (vehicular homicide). The risks for machine drivers are different but I am not sure that they are objectively any scarier. It seems more like the irrational (but sometimes useful) fear of the unknown and unfamiliar.
No. Supersymmetry is a symmetry between the particles which give us forces and matter (bosons and fermions). String theory is a prediction that particles are actually strings existing in higher spacial dimensions that are compactified on a scale so small that we cannot see them. My understanding is that string theory is a lot easier in a world that also has supersymmetry but SUSY is not required for string theory to work.
I'm trying to think of the last time an experiment to try to prove supersymmetry actually worked
None ever have which is why we are still looking for it since it is still one of the most promising theories to explain both why the Higgs is so low in mass and what Dark Matter is. However, this result really has nothing to do with Supersymmetry. Discovering an electric dipole moment for an electron would be an example of time reversal (T) violation (as the paper says in its abstract).
Supersymmetry does not require any new T-violation. While it is possible for SUSY to include new T-violation not including it does not affect the theory in any significant way. So, while this result is very interesting it really does not have any significant implications for SUSY which far, far more constrained by the non-observation of any evidence for it at the LHC.
In Belgium I used to get packages all the time that ended up costing me money.
The same thing happens in Canada and elsewhere. This is the reason why only the US is seeing this problem. Most other countries have a value limit on what can be shipped without taxes (import duties, VAT/sales tax etc.) being charged. While the taxes themselves might not be particularly high the agent costs to collect and process that parcel through customs are often significantly higher.
The problem is that for a long time the US used to be the cheapest place to produce goods and so they had no need to worry about charging duties and taxes on imported goods. However, the world has changed and this is no longer the case. If they applied a low-value limit for tax-free retail shipping the problem would solve itself without the need to lose all the political capital that this treaty withdrawal will cause.
I think that's one of the biggest problems with Trump. Even when he is right about a problem he always seems to pick the most damaging and disruptive method to address it.
These two yutzes cause a crash on the freeway and they don't even bother to stop and check if the other people are injured?
Doesn't that actually depend on who has to give way when merging? In most countries, traffic merging has to give way to that on the main road. If this is true in California while the safer thing to do would have been to slow down and let the Camry in what was preventing the Camry from slowing down and merging in behind i.e. giving way to existing traffic as it merged?
While the software could have taken steps to avoid this behaviour that it not the same thing as saying that it caused the accident. If you leave your house door open and you get burgled you have not caused your house to be burgled nor have you done anything wrong you just failed to anticipate that your actions would encourage bad behaviour by others.
They don't even have to have a ship - just sit at home, hack the controls and become a high-tech version of a Cornish wrecker. This could take online piracy to a whole new level.
No, all existing planets are stratified, have a single solid or liquid core, formed at high energy and have heavy elements. No asteroid or comet can claim all of these. Indeed, no asteroid or comet can claim any of them.
...and yet Ceres is an asteroid. It has a stratified structure, solid core and has heavy elements. So not only can an asteroid claim one of these it can claim all three.
I cannot believe I have to post something so mindboggingly obvious.
I cannot believe that you would post something so mindboggingly wrong.
The last comments here tend to suggest you still see Chromebooks as "A OS running a web browser", but that hasn't been the case for a while.
That was specifically why I mentioned the increasing CPU. However, for the moment that is not really the case. My daughter just started first year university physics with a Chromebook from school and we have already had to replace it with a real laptop. The Chromebook could not run the applications she needed for first year labs.
The flipping water bottle trick only works for inertial frames of reference.
Actually, it doesn't. It requires a gravitational force to cause the bottle to land. Since a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from a frame undergoing constant acceleration the flipping water bottle requires an accelerating i.e. non-inertial frame to actually work. Hence there is no Special Flipping, only General Flipping.
What is missing is higher education. Yes, kids use Chromebooks in school but then about half of them go into higher education where, at least in STEM at the moment, a Chromebook will not cut it. However with things like Google Colabaratory and online LaTeX sites plus the increasing power of Chromebook CPUs this could soon change.
They're structurally different, have different composition and formed differently at a different time.
So are the current planets so if you are going to suddenly start differentiating based on this you are clearly going to be using arbitrary constraints that are purely designed to let the current planets pass plus Pluto and reject anything else. This sorts of constraints are going to then be tied specifically to our solar system and will not work for any other. You are effectively classifying something by how you feel about it and then coming up with criteria to give you that result: that's nothing to do with science.
Pluto has the same current classification as these objects and at least one of them is larger than Pluto. Unless your definition of a planet is completely arbitrary it is going to either include or exclude all these objects.
Yes, but without a lower size limit there are many orders of magnitude more "planets" and frankly it seems silly to call something the size of a pebble a planet just because it happens to orbit the sun.
did no one read about the chinese compromise of the supremicro motherboards? and now people are upset that a vendor requires certified parts?
If they were worried about security then it would only need to alert the user if non-Apple parts are added. Refusing to run even if something is replaced by another Apple part suggests very strongly that the motive is nothing to do with security.
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Exactly. So if it slows hot air escaping the continent in the summer then it may cause localized increases in temperature inland while there would be a reduction over the ocean. Overall the planet wins but since we live and grow crops and animals on the land we may end up being more affected due to the localized increase in temperature due to the reduced mixing.
I've not looked at his paper so I'm not going to defend it but your argument for immediately dismissing it as false simply does not hold water. Nor do I see this as "pro-fossil fuel" - if anything it is an argument for more solar and tidal power and/or taking some care in where we place wind farms.
If you really wanted to tackle CO2, then dump every bit of R&D into Fusion Energy.
Fusion energy has been 40 years away for the past 60 years. It's a very hard problem to solve and, while it might be great eventually (assuming the reactors are not too insanely expensive to build) it is not something we can rely on for solving our carbon emissions because, while I hope not, it may still be 40 years away a century from now.
Have you met, like... physicists? You cannot be a physicist without being able to take onboard logical arguments backed up by data. Besides, the point of speaking out and pointing out the absurdity of an argument like this is not just for the benefit of the idiot making it, it is also for the benefit of those listening.
If you shoot down an argument like that with simple logic and data those in the audience will not only be unlikely to believe it but if they hear the same argument again elsewhere they know how to shoot it down themselves. If the person persists in making these arguments they will then end-up being dismissed as an idiot and/or crackpot who will be ignored. This is a vastly more effective way to kill stupid ideas than trying to silence the person who made them.
How many people heard this story and thought that he was factually correct and so was silenced for raising a valid argument that was not 'PC'? That's why you refute stupid arguments with logic and data so that everyone knows that they are wrong. Silencing the person making them sends a very different message.
In this context, we are discussing a job on a company's board. Yes, there are clearly times when even hiring for a job, it is appropriate to discriminate on these grounds e.g. you are not going to hire a Muslim for a job as a parish vicar but these exceptions are usually pretty self-evident.
Take dating for example, it's all about discrimination. Shouldn't people should be free to associate with whomever they want no matter the reason?
Apparently no we should not. Just be thankful you are still allowed to select based on age and gender...at least for the time being.
Well, he's not wrong. Almost all the biggest minds in physics and math were men
True but have you ever stopped to wonder why? This is NOT evidence that men are better at physics but evidence of the extremely sexist society which has existed for centuries. Yes, things are a lot better now than they used to be but you have to be a monumental idiot to not realize that sexism in the past was directly responsible for the lack of women in physics or indeed any science.
This is what should have been pointed out to him by someone in the audience. This is the way that you fix idiotic thinking. If you scare them into never expressing their views you will never have the opportunity to correct them.
A physicist just wanting to do physics without politics injected
If he had really been wanting to do just that why would he go to a workshop titled "High Energy Physics Theory and Gender" instead of one just on physics without the gender? The difference is that if you go to a physics conference and say something stupid you will be shown to be stupid by use of logic and data. If you go to a gender conference and say something stupid you are burnt at the stake as a heretic. Only one of these approaches teaches you why you are wrong and lets you, and others, learn from your mistake thereby helping to fix the problem...which is why we use that approach in science.
Looking at the pdf presentation in the OP's link, he went somewhere that some people do not want to be discussed, Gender differences and gender preferences.
Really? At a workshop titled "High Energy Theory and Gender" people would not want gender to be discussed? I think the problem was that they did not want to listen to someone with this point of view. However, if you are not willing to let someone like this express their views so that you can challenge them how are they ever going to learn any better? Preventing people from expressing their views does absolutely nothing to get them to change them. Indeed, if anything it will reinforce their views since they will probably believe that the reason they are being punished for speaking is that there is no good argument to refute them.
Slashdot Mirror
The less involved a human is with controlling the behavior of a machine, the less you can bank upon are his/her human responses to situations to apply to the machine's behavior. That's legitimately scary.
That depends. In the US alone there are 30,000 accidental deaths caused by humans driving vehicles each year and about 300 deliberate deaths (vehicular homicide). The risks for machine drivers are different but I am not sure that they are objectively any scarier. It seems more like the irrational (but sometimes useful) fear of the unknown and unfamiliar.
No. Supersymmetry is a symmetry between the particles which give us forces and matter (bosons and fermions). String theory is a prediction that particles are actually strings existing in higher spacial dimensions that are compactified on a scale so small that we cannot see them. My understanding is that string theory is a lot easier in a world that also has supersymmetry but SUSY is not required for string theory to work.
I'm trying to think of the last time an experiment to try to prove supersymmetry actually worked
None ever have which is why we are still looking for it since it is still one of the most promising theories to explain both why the Higgs is so low in mass and what Dark Matter is. However, this result really has nothing to do with Supersymmetry. Discovering an electric dipole moment for an electron would be an example of time reversal (T) violation (as the paper says in its abstract).
Supersymmetry does not require any new T-violation. While it is possible for SUSY to include new T-violation not including it does not affect the theory in any significant way. So, while this result is very interesting it really does not have any significant implications for SUSY which far, far more constrained by the non-observation of any evidence for it at the LHC.
In Belgium I used to get packages all the time that ended up costing me money.
The same thing happens in Canada and elsewhere. This is the reason why only the US is seeing this problem. Most other countries have a value limit on what can be shipped without taxes (import duties, VAT/sales tax etc.) being charged. While the taxes themselves might not be particularly high the agent costs to collect and process that parcel through customs are often significantly higher.
The problem is that for a long time the US used to be the cheapest place to produce goods and so they had no need to worry about charging duties and taxes on imported goods. However, the world has changed and this is no longer the case. If they applied a low-value limit for tax-free retail shipping the problem would solve itself without the need to lose all the political capital that this treaty withdrawal will cause.
I think that's one of the biggest problems with Trump. Even when he is right about a problem he always seems to pick the most damaging and disruptive method to address it.
These two yutzes cause a crash on the freeway and they don't even bother to stop and check if the other people are injured?
Doesn't that actually depend on who has to give way when merging? In most countries, traffic merging has to give way to that on the main road. If this is true in California while the safer thing to do would have been to slow down and let the Camry in what was preventing the Camry from slowing down and merging in behind i.e. giving way to existing traffic as it merged?
While the software could have taken steps to avoid this behaviour that it not the same thing as saying that it caused the accident. If you leave your house door open and you get burgled you have not caused your house to be burgled nor have you done anything wrong you just failed to anticipate that your actions would encourage bad behaviour by others.
It might not be perfect but it is a lot better than what the studio did with Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing in Rogue One only a couple of years ago.
They don't even have to have a ship - just sit at home, hack the controls and become a high-tech version of a Cornish wrecker. This could take online piracy to a whole new level.
Surely these should be meta moons?
No, all existing planets are stratified, have a single solid or liquid core, formed at high energy and have heavy elements. No asteroid or comet can claim all of these. Indeed, no asteroid or comet can claim any of them.
I cannot believe I have to post something so mindboggingly obvious.
I cannot believe that you would post something so mindboggingly wrong.
The last comments here tend to suggest you still see Chromebooks as "A OS running a web browser", but that hasn't been the case for a while.
That was specifically why I mentioned the increasing CPU. However, for the moment that is not really the case. My daughter just started first year university physics with a Chromebook from school and we have already had to replace it with a real laptop. The Chromebook could not run the applications she needed for first year labs.
The flipping water bottle trick only works for inertial frames of reference.
Actually, it doesn't. It requires a gravitational force to cause the bottle to land. Since a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from a frame undergoing constant acceleration the flipping water bottle requires an accelerating i.e. non-inertial frame to actually work. Hence there is no Special Flipping, only General Flipping.
What is missing is higher education. Yes, kids use Chromebooks in school but then about half of them go into higher education where, at least in STEM at the moment, a Chromebook will not cut it. However with things like Google Colabaratory and online LaTeX sites plus the increasing power of Chromebook CPUs this could soon change.
They're structurally different, have different composition and formed differently at a different time.
So are the current planets so if you are going to suddenly start differentiating based on this you are clearly going to be using arbitrary constraints that are purely designed to let the current planets pass plus Pluto and reject anything else. This sorts of constraints are going to then be tied specifically to our solar system and will not work for any other. You are effectively classifying something by how you feel about it and then coming up with criteria to give you that result: that's nothing to do with science.
Pluto has the same current classification as these objects and at least one of them is larger than Pluto. Unless your definition of a planet is completely arbitrary it is going to either include or exclude all these objects.
Yes, but without a lower size limit there are many orders of magnitude more "planets" and frankly it seems silly to call something the size of a pebble a planet just because it happens to orbit the sun.
did no one read about the chinese compromise of the supremicro motherboards? and now people are upset that a vendor requires certified parts?
If they were worried about security then it would only need to alert the user if non-Apple parts are added. Refusing to run even if something is replaced by another Apple part suggests very strongly that the motive is nothing to do with security.
Because PLUTO is still planet 9 and a giant mystery planet must be name “PLANET X.”
The problem with that is that if Pluto is classed as a planet then we already have planets 10, 11 and 12 and possibly more.
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Exactly. So if it slows hot air escaping the continent in the summer then it may cause localized increases in temperature inland while there would be a reduction over the ocean. Overall the planet wins but since we live and grow crops and animals on the land we may end up being more affected due to the localized increase in temperature due to the reduced mixing.
I've not looked at his paper so I'm not going to defend it but your argument for immediately dismissing it as false simply does not hold water. Nor do I see this as "pro-fossil fuel" - if anything it is an argument for more solar and tidal power and/or taking some care in where we place wind farms.
Even better, if they were not hung up on being so rational about it we could have had WiFiPi.
If you really wanted to tackle CO2, then dump every bit of R&D into Fusion Energy.
Fusion energy has been 40 years away for the past 60 years. It's a very hard problem to solve and, while it might be great eventually (assuming the reactors are not too insanely expensive to build) it is not something we can rely on for solving our carbon emissions because, while I hope not, it may still be 40 years away a century from now.
Have you met, like... people?
Have you met, like... physicists? You cannot be a physicist without being able to take onboard logical arguments backed up by data. Besides, the point of speaking out and pointing out the absurdity of an argument like this is not just for the benefit of the idiot making it, it is also for the benefit of those listening.
If you shoot down an argument like that with simple logic and data those in the audience will not only be unlikely to believe it but if they hear the same argument again elsewhere they know how to shoot it down themselves. If the person persists in making these arguments they will then end-up being dismissed as an idiot and/or crackpot who will be ignored. This is a vastly more effective way to kill stupid ideas than trying to silence the person who made them.
How many people heard this story and thought that he was factually correct and so was silenced for raising a valid argument that was not 'PC'? That's why you refute stupid arguments with logic and data so that everyone knows that they are wrong. Silencing the person making them sends a very different message.
Take dating for example, it's all about discrimination. Shouldn't people should be free to associate with whomever they want no matter the reason?
Apparently no we should not. Just be thankful you are still allowed to select based on age and gender ...at least for the time being.
Well, he's not wrong. Almost all the biggest minds in physics and math were men
True but have you ever stopped to wonder why? This is NOT evidence that men are better at physics but evidence of the extremely sexist society which has existed for centuries. Yes, things are a lot better now than they used to be but you have to be a monumental idiot to not realize that sexism in the past was directly responsible for the lack of women in physics or indeed any science.
This is what should have been pointed out to him by someone in the audience. This is the way that you fix idiotic thinking. If you scare them into never expressing their views you will never have the opportunity to correct them.
A physicist just wanting to do physics without politics injected
If he had really been wanting to do just that why would he go to a workshop titled "High Energy Physics Theory and Gender" instead of one just on physics without the gender? The difference is that if you go to a physics conference and say something stupid you will be shown to be stupid by use of logic and data. If you go to a gender conference and say something stupid you are burnt at the stake as a heretic. Only one of these approaches teaches you why you are wrong and lets you, and others, learn from your mistake thereby helping to fix the problem...which is why we use that approach in science.
Looking at the pdf presentation in the OP's link, he went somewhere that some people do not want to be discussed, Gender differences and gender preferences.
Really? At a workshop titled "High Energy Theory and Gender" people would not want gender to be discussed? I think the problem was that they did not want to listen to someone with this point of view. However, if you are not willing to let someone like this express their views so that you can challenge them how are they ever going to learn any better? Preventing people from expressing their views does absolutely nothing to get them to change them. Indeed, if anything it will reinforce their views since they will probably believe that the reason they are being punished for speaking is that there is no good argument to refute them.