In a "pray I don't alter it any further" moment...
Unless they also have some rule that says the content must be at the same price they will undoubtedly need to alter it further to require that too otherwise I'm sure the content will be made available in the app...with a 30% markup to cover the Apple fee of course. This will result in nobody using the in-app purchase and everyone using the external method.
When you pass off someone else's work as your own (whether it be a test exam or assignment) that is cheating because you are claiming to have done the work yourself and hence to know something when, in fact you do not. Isn't this EXACTLY what Bing is doing? Claiming it has done all this search work itself when in fact some fraction of the work has been done by Google? Not cheating would be to tell people in advance that they use Google search results...but if they did that I imagine a lot of people would just use Google directly. Hence they are breaking the ethical rules of conduct to gain an advantage which is the exact definition of cheating.
How about a pen knife. Oh sure they still make things called pen knives...
This is consistent with the point I was making...the thing is still made although the primary use has changed therefore you have heard of it because it is still useful.
How about those head clamps early photographers used to use to hold the subjects still for a long duration exposure.
...as opposed to head clamps doctors use to hold their patients heads still for NMR imaging and also during brain surgery?
How about a postal mail perforator (used to infuse mail with fumugants to kill dread diseases).
...compared to paper perforators designed to score paper for easy separation by hand.
magnetic bubble memory and paper tape readers.
Paper tape is still used in high school physics experiments to measure accelerations and knitting machines use it to store patterns not to mention various kids toys. So while most of these inventions are perhaps no being used for what they were originally intended they are still being used.
However I think you have a point with bubble memory the reason being that it is a recent enough defunct invention that you can (presumably) remember it being used, or at least being talked about by someone who used it.
So except for recent inventions, I would argue that just because it is hard to think of a tool that is no longer being made that does not mean they do not exist...it just means that you probably haven't heard of them because they are now useless.
Therein lies the problem. Any invention that we have heard of or read about is probably because somewhere, somehow it is still in use. Unless you happen to be a historian specializing in weird inventions you probably have never heard of inventions which are no longer made or used.
Never mind other states, what about non-US registered cars? I'd imagine this mainly means us Canadians but I have seen the odd European number plate on US roads. Since they won't be able to find out who owns the vehicle thanks to Canadian and European privacy laws does this mean we get to cross for free?
Then you just get into the old macro-micro evolution debate. They'll accept that there can be changes, but they'll claim that one "kind" never changes into another "kind". So basically they're accepting the mechanisms of evolution
If they understand things well enough to be able to argue that competently I'd say the teacher's job is done: they clearly understand the basics of evolution even if they refuse to believe it. Once you get to that point you are arguing against an entirely irrationally held disbelief and so you need a psychiatrist not a teacher.
The way to deal with it is to tell the student that whether or not they accept evolution...
There is an even better way which points out that really they probably believe in evolution too. Just ask them whether they were worried about the swine flu outbreak last year or the bird flu a few years before. Assuming that they respond that these were valid causes for some concern ask them why because, if there is no evolution, then there will be no change in infectious diseases either so there is nothing to be concerned about. Then let them think about that for a while.
While many people may profess otherwise when push comes to shove they do believe in science. This latest science-religion controvesy is utter nonsense. Science and religion have coexisted well for hundreds of years. Yes, with occasional conflicts - but lets not forget that a lot of science was actually conducted by religion early on. It only seems to be recently that a few idiots on the fringe of religions seem to have garnered undue support...which is probably not unrelated to the declining educational standards in schools.
the root of the aorta is the most elastic part of a very elastic vessel, and transmitting the higher pressure downstream (which his aorta-corset will do)
I'm not a medic but I am a physicist and what you say does not make sense from a physics point of view. If you take a bulge in a pipe containing a flowing liquid and squeeze it back down to the diameter of the rest of the pipe you do not increase the pressure lower down. In fact, if anything, you will reduce it because the narrower pipe will have a larger pressure drop along it due to viscous flow.
This is not the same as squeezing a closed, static system, like a balloon where squeezing it at one point reduces the volume considerable which does increase the pressure causing the unrestricted part to bulge. Yes, technically there is a volume change by restricting the aorta but surely this is only a small fraction of the total circulatory system and even then wouldn't this just cause the body to eventually reduce the amount of blood in circulation by that amount?
So unless, I have over simplified something (not taking account of the pulsed flow for example), I don't see from a purely physics perspective how it would make the pressure lower down any higher and so make the situation worse. There may be medical reasons for for increased concern but not the pressure reason you state above.
That's the key phrase. If the company doing the tracking is sitting in $DISTANT_COUNTRY which has no laws against tracking you are completely powerless to stop them. Hence the "Ignores international nature of the web" option.
Ignoring sexual consent is very different because it involves violence and physical harm and it is illegal in practically all countries. This is more like trespass: in is a minor offence and not all countries agree that this is a crime and even if they do the laws vary considerably....and being minor (if a crime at all) you are also exceedingly unlikely to get an extradition case for it.
Since 3D cinema pretty clearly empirically does "work" for most reasonable definitions of the word "work"
It works in that it fools your brain into believing that there is a 3D scene in front of it. It does not work in providing an enjoyable, entertaining experience for 2 hours because it causes headaches due to the focus/convergence disparity with real 3D and also is blurred. This blurring is because rather than use two differently polarized images with two different polaroid lens they go for the cheap option where one image is polarized and the other is projected at twice brightness. This lets lets them save money by using a simple filter for one eye. However this eye then sees both images, although the less bright one is a lot dimmer, which makes things look blurred.
The net result is that I hate paying extra to see 3D films. I would have no objection if they did not charge extra for them because I just bring my polaroid sunglasses with me and have a nice, headache free, non-blurred 2D film experience. It was certainly neat to see the effect for the first time but after 30 minutes the headache set in and the blurring was really irritating. I would disagree that it is impossible to develop good, watchable 3D displays but we are not yet there.
It being Nature group is no guarantee of success or high impact.
Given the press release which mentions that the publication is supposedly for "natural sciences" which includes physics, geology, chemistry etc. but then goes on to say that all articles will be deposited in PubMed Central which is for "biomedical and life sciences". If that is the level of thought behind this journal then I have to say that it is remarkably unimpressive.
Effectively this proposal is not more than saying "please don't track me" and then having a law that requires websites obey the user's request. As such I'd argue it is a legislative fix and so you also need one extra item on your check list:
(X) Ignores the international nature of the web.
That isn't what they are saying, it is just what the 0.0000000000000003% of users that might want to install their own OS
Got a little carried away with the zeroes there did we? Even if everyone on the planet owned a Motorola phone that would be about 20 billionths of one user who is understandably going to be rather upset when several thousand brain cells attempt to install their own OS.
The only thing *known* about dark matter is that we can't (easily ?) see it.
We know a lot more about it than that. For a start it cannot be made of atoms because not only does it not interact with light but nor does it interact via strong nuclear force interactions. However it is distributed through out galaxies, as a sphere, even when the visible galaxy is spiral, and it does not cause accretion disks so it cannot be trapped in Black Holes as you suggest.
However it does not have to consist of just one type of particle. It is entirely possible that there might be some structure to Dark Matter...just nothing like ordinary matter. Arkani-Hamed at Princeton has suggested some more complex models and we are looking for these possibilities at ATLAS on the LHC but until there is clear evidence to the contrary the simplest explanation for DM is a single, neutral, possibly weakly interacting, massive particle.
I can see the rebuttal now: "How can you say the universe is not fine-tuned for us? We're here, aren't we?"
...you can show it is not fined tuned by showing that for almost all choices of physical constants you end up with a universe capable of supporting sufficient complexity for life. Currently we have no clue what the cause of the cosmological constant is nor how (or even whether) it is related to the other constants of nature. What's interesting to me about Don's paper is that it shows that IF we are free to vary the cosmological constant we can get a more "life friendly" value for it. However it is not clear to me that we are necessarily free to vary it without possibly altering other things that might make life less likely.
If I were to put money on it I'd guess that eventually we will find that the Universe is not fine-tuned and that, although the initial parameters (possibly not the ones we have now) can vary they vary in such a way that a universe somewhat similar to ours is somewhat inevitable after the Big Bang.
If this is a likely scenario then where are all the people suing Microsoft because Windows let hackers install malicious code which deleted data. This happens frequently and yet I'm not aware of MS getting sued.
The ecliptic from the Earth's perspective is constant (by definition)
Its true that the definition is constant but, against the backdrop of stars, the ecliptic is anything but constant. The sun is in orbit around the galactic core so given enough time (100k years or so) you can certainly have a change where the ecliptic is compared to the background stars. Of course since those stars themselves are all in orbits too they will have also shifted relative to each other.
Astrology is a superstitious hobby of zero scientific merit, but even within its own formulation this article should have no impact on it.
...and what happens when stellar drift completely mixes up the constellations? Of course this article will have no impact on Astrology - nothing based on reality can impact astrology because it is a work of fiction.
Google the topics or look them up in wikipedia. They are mainstream science and easy to find. Searching for "wmap" is a good extra term for the cmb data.
Even an inferior Tevatron can produce results, two instruments operating at a time is often better than one really good one.
True but that is the wrong question to ask. What you should be asking is whether funding the Tevatron is better than say a massively upgraded B factory, or R&D on a 1TeV electron-positron collider, or a new neutrino experiment etc. etc. This is not a cut to the US budget but simply a choice to redeploy the funds to different research projects in the field.
One silly recession, and everyone's going all budget cuts crazy.
This is not a cut to the US science budget - it is just that scientists themselves think that the money they do have is better spent elsewhere. The chance for the Tevatron to see the Higgs, even with twice the data, is small enough to start with. When pitted against a working machine with 3.5 times higher energy and higher luminosity there are simply more interesting things to spend the money on....and I say that as someone who worked on the Tevatron but who is admittedly now working on the LHC.
While it would certainly be good in the long term for society to put a far higher priority on science than it does that does not always mean that every time a program is cut it is for the wrong reasons. Sometimes shutting down a program IS justified and, while somewhat sad, there does come a point where other projects in the field offer more productive areas for scientific exploration.
So show me the multiple non biased independent data.
Cosmic microwave background; observed expansion of the universe (confirmed by multiple, different methods); observed relative abundances of the elements. These are all independent measurements relating to different phases of the Big Bang.
If we can find Dark Matter and measure its parameters (mass and coupling) this will give us another handle on a different epoch of the Big Bang - or show us problems with the theory. However either way I would still argue that there is currently better evidence for the existence of the Big Bang than there is for one person based solely on the evidence of one Slashdot post, which could be potentially faked by a script.
it suggests that if they do exist they directly project their energy into the brain, rather than manifest physically.
Really? To me that suggests that they do not exist and that it is some quirk of the way the human brain works that tricks us into thinking we saw something. I think that there probably is some interesting science behind ghosts but it is in the field of psychology, not physics.
The same way I know that you exist: by making reasonable inferences from the available data. In your case the only evidence I have of your existence is one Slashdot post. For the Big Bang there are multiple, independent data sources so currently I'd say that I'd be more inclined to believe in the existence of the Big Bang than you!
The folks at CERN have one that can detect Higgs bosons. Um, however, it's not that quite portable yet.
The Higgs boson, if it exists, has a mass over ~114 times bigger than a proton. ALL that energy goes into the decay which means that the decay products will have energies about 1,000-10,000 times higher than those from nuclear decays (10's GeV not a few MeV). Since all detectors work on the principle of particles depositing energy in material as they pass through it with several thousand times the energy you need a lot more material hence a far larger detector.
Slashdot Mirror
Arghhh! ...of course I meant a 43% markup to cover the 30% fee!
In a "pray I don't alter it any further" moment...
Unless they also have some rule that says the content must be at the same price they will undoubtedly need to alter it further to require that too otherwise I'm sure the content will be made available in the app...with a 30% markup to cover the Apple fee of course. This will result in nobody using the in-app purchase and everyone using the external method.
Bad analogy. This isn't a test.
When you pass off someone else's work as your own (whether it be a test exam or assignment) that is cheating because you are claiming to have done the work yourself and hence to know something when, in fact you do not. Isn't this EXACTLY what Bing is doing? Claiming it has done all this search work itself when in fact some fraction of the work has been done by Google? Not cheating would be to tell people in advance that they use Google search results...but if they did that I imagine a lot of people would just use Google directly. Hence they are breaking the ethical rules of conduct to gain an advantage which is the exact definition of cheating.
How about a pen knife. Oh sure they still make things called pen knives...
This is consistent with the point I was making...the thing is still made although the primary use has changed therefore you have heard of it because it is still useful.
How about those head clamps early photographers used to use to hold the subjects still for a long duration exposure.
How about a postal mail perforator (used to infuse mail with fumugants to kill dread diseases).
magnetic bubble memory and paper tape readers.
Paper tape is still used in high school physics experiments to measure accelerations and knitting machines use it to store patterns not to mention various kids toys. So while most of these inventions are perhaps no being used for what they were originally intended they are still being used.
However I think you have a point with bubble memory the reason being that it is a recent enough defunct invention that you can (presumably) remember it being used, or at least being talked about by someone who used it.
So except for recent inventions, I would argue that just because it is hard to think of a tool that is no longer being made that does not mean they do not exist...it just means that you probably haven't heard of them because they are now useless.
How many times have we read about NASA tapes...
Therein lies the problem. Any invention that we have heard of or read about is probably because somewhere, somehow it is still in use. Unless you happen to be a historian specializing in weird inventions you probably have never heard of inventions which are no longer made or used.
Never mind other states, what about non-US registered cars? I'd imagine this mainly means us Canadians but I have seen the odd European number plate on US roads. Since they won't be able to find out who owns the vehicle thanks to Canadian and European privacy laws does this mean we get to cross for free?
Then you just get into the old macro-micro evolution debate. They'll accept that there can be changes, but they'll claim that one "kind" never changes into another "kind". So basically they're accepting the mechanisms of evolution
If they understand things well enough to be able to argue that competently I'd say the teacher's job is done: they clearly understand the basics of evolution even if they refuse to believe it. Once you get to that point you are arguing against an entirely irrationally held disbelief and so you need a psychiatrist not a teacher.
The way to deal with it is to tell the student that whether or not they accept evolution...
There is an even better way which points out that really they probably believe in evolution too. Just ask them whether they were worried about the swine flu outbreak last year or the bird flu a few years before. Assuming that they respond that these were valid causes for some concern ask them why because, if there is no evolution, then there will be no change in infectious diseases either so there is nothing to be concerned about. Then let them think about that for a while.
While many people may profess otherwise when push comes to shove they do believe in science. This latest science-religion controvesy is utter nonsense. Science and religion have coexisted well for hundreds of years. Yes, with occasional conflicts - but lets not forget that a lot of science was actually conducted by religion early on. It only seems to be recently that a few idiots on the fringe of religions seem to have garnered undue support...which is probably not unrelated to the declining educational standards in schools.
the root of the aorta is the most elastic part of a very elastic vessel, and transmitting the higher pressure downstream (which his aorta-corset will do)
I'm not a medic but I am a physicist and what you say does not make sense from a physics point of view. If you take a bulge in a pipe containing a flowing liquid and squeeze it back down to the diameter of the rest of the pipe you do not increase the pressure lower down. In fact, if anything, you will reduce it because the narrower pipe will have a larger pressure drop along it due to viscous flow.
This is not the same as squeezing a closed, static system, like a balloon where squeezing it at one point reduces the volume considerable which does increase the pressure causing the unrestricted part to bulge. Yes, technically there is a volume change by restricting the aorta but surely this is only a small fraction of the total circulatory system and even then wouldn't this just cause the body to eventually reduce the amount of blood in circulation by that amount?
So unless, I have over simplified something (not taking account of the pulsed flow for example), I don't see from a purely physics perspective how it would make the pressure lower down any higher and so make the situation worse. There may be medical reasons for for increased concern but not the pressure reason you state above.
and with the proper legislative context
That's the key phrase. If the company doing the tracking is sitting in $DISTANT_COUNTRY which has no laws against tracking you are completely powerless to stop them. Hence the "Ignores international nature of the web" option.
Ignoring sexual consent is very different because it involves violence and physical harm and it is illegal in practically all countries. This is more like trespass: in is a minor offence and not all countries agree that this is a crime and even if they do the laws vary considerably....and being minor (if a crime at all) you are also exceedingly unlikely to get an extradition case for it.
Since 3D cinema pretty clearly empirically does "work" for most reasonable definitions of the word "work"
It works in that it fools your brain into believing that there is a 3D scene in front of it. It does not work in providing an enjoyable, entertaining experience for 2 hours because it causes headaches due to the focus/convergence disparity with real 3D and also is blurred. This blurring is because rather than use two differently polarized images with two different polaroid lens they go for the cheap option where one image is polarized and the other is projected at twice brightness. This lets lets them save money by using a simple filter for one eye. However this eye then sees both images, although the less bright one is a lot dimmer, which makes things look blurred.
The net result is that I hate paying extra to see 3D films. I would have no objection if they did not charge extra for them because I just bring my polaroid sunglasses with me and have a nice, headache free, non-blurred 2D film experience. It was certainly neat to see the effect for the first time but after 30 minutes the headache set in and the blurring was really irritating. I would disagree that it is impossible to develop good, watchable 3D displays but we are not yet there.
It being Nature group is no guarantee of success or high impact.
Given the press release which mentions that the publication is supposedly for "natural sciences" which includes physics, geology, chemistry etc. but then goes on to say that all articles will be deposited in PubMed Central which is for "biomedical and life sciences". If that is the level of thought behind this journal then I have to say that it is remarkably unimpressive.
Effectively this proposal is not more than saying "please don't track me" and then having a law that requires websites obey the user's request. As such I'd argue it is a legislative fix and so you also need one extra item on your check list: (X) Ignores the international nature of the web.
That isn't what they are saying, it is just what the 0.0000000000000003% of users that might want to install their own OS
Got a little carried away with the zeroes there did we? Even if everyone on the planet owned a Motorola phone that would be about 20 billionths of one user who is understandably going to be rather upset when several thousand brain cells attempt to install their own OS.
The only thing *known* about dark matter is that we can't (easily ?) see it.
We know a lot more about it than that. For a start it cannot be made of atoms because not only does it not interact with light but nor does it interact via strong nuclear force interactions. However it is distributed through out galaxies, as a sphere, even when the visible galaxy is spiral, and it does not cause accretion disks so it cannot be trapped in Black Holes as you suggest.
However it does not have to consist of just one type of particle. It is entirely possible that there might be some structure to Dark Matter...just nothing like ordinary matter. Arkani-Hamed at Princeton has suggested some more complex models and we are looking for these possibilities at ATLAS on the LHC but until there is clear evidence to the contrary the simplest explanation for DM is a single, neutral, possibly weakly interacting, massive particle.
I can see the rebuttal now: "How can you say the universe is not fine-tuned for us? We're here, aren't we?"
If I were to put money on it I'd guess that eventually we will find that the Universe is not fine-tuned and that, although the initial parameters (possibly not the ones we have now) can vary they vary in such a way that a universe somewhat similar to ours is somewhat inevitable after the Big Bang.
If this is a likely scenario then where are all the people suing Microsoft because Windows let hackers install malicious code which deleted data. This happens frequently and yet I'm not aware of MS getting sued.
The ecliptic from the Earth's perspective is constant (by definition)
Its true that the definition is constant but, against the backdrop of stars, the ecliptic is anything but constant. The sun is in orbit around the galactic core so given enough time (100k years or so) you can certainly have a change where the ecliptic is compared to the background stars. Of course since those stars themselves are all in orbits too they will have also shifted relative to each other.
Astrology is a superstitious hobby of zero scientific merit, but even within its own formulation this article should have no impact on it.
Google the topics or look them up in wikipedia. They are mainstream science and easy to find. Searching for "wmap" is a good extra term for the cmb data.
Even an inferior Tevatron can produce results, two instruments operating at a time is often better than one really good one.
True but that is the wrong question to ask. What you should be asking is whether funding the Tevatron is better than say a massively upgraded B factory, or R&D on a 1TeV electron-positron collider, or a new neutrino experiment etc. etc. This is not a cut to the US budget but simply a choice to redeploy the funds to different research projects in the field.
One silly recession, and everyone's going all budget cuts crazy.
This is not a cut to the US science budget - it is just that scientists themselves think that the money they do have is better spent elsewhere. The chance for the Tevatron to see the Higgs, even with twice the data, is small enough to start with. When pitted against a working machine with 3.5 times higher energy and higher luminosity there are simply more interesting things to spend the money on....and I say that as someone who worked on the Tevatron but who is admittedly now working on the LHC.
While it would certainly be good in the long term for society to put a far higher priority on science than it does that does not always mean that every time a program is cut it is for the wrong reasons. Sometimes shutting down a program IS justified and, while somewhat sad, there does come a point where other projects in the field offer more productive areas for scientific exploration.
So show me the multiple non biased independent data.
Cosmic microwave background; observed expansion of the universe (confirmed by multiple, different methods); observed relative abundances of the elements. These are all independent measurements relating to different phases of the Big Bang.
If we can find Dark Matter and measure its parameters (mass and coupling) this will give us another handle on a different epoch of the Big Bang - or show us problems with the theory. However either way I would still argue that there is currently better evidence for the existence of the Big Bang than there is for one person based solely on the evidence of one Slashdot post, which could be potentially faked by a script.
it suggests that if they do exist they directly project their energy into the brain, rather than manifest physically.
Really? To me that suggests that they do not exist and that it is some quirk of the way the human brain works that tricks us into thinking we saw something. I think that there probably is some interesting science behind ghosts but it is in the field of psychology, not physics.
How do you know?!
The same way I know that you exist: by making reasonable inferences from the available data. In your case the only evidence I have of your existence is one Slashdot post. For the Big Bang there are multiple, independent data sources so currently I'd say that I'd be more inclined to believe in the existence of the Big Bang than you!
The folks at CERN have one that can detect Higgs bosons. Um, however, it's not that quite portable yet.
The Higgs boson, if it exists, has a mass over ~114 times bigger than a proton. ALL that energy goes into the decay which means that the decay products will have energies about 1,000-10,000 times higher than those from nuclear decays (10's GeV not a few MeV). Since all detectors work on the principle of particles depositing energy in material as they pass through it with several thousand times the energy you need a lot more material hence a far larger detector.