The sonic boom is not really an issue. The actual sonic boom from Concorde at cruise altitude...posed no real risk.
No, the sonic boom really was a serious issue and was the reason why Concorde was limited to flying to the eastern seaboard of the US. It was not that it was dangerous but more the noise which you can hear in in this video around the 1 minute mark from a plane claimed to be at 50-60,000 feet. It is certainly not negligible and you would not want to be hearing that multiple times a day if you were living under a flight path.
The take-off noise is also not negligible. As a grad student, I remember waiting on a plane to take off at Heathrow one evening when there was a deep-throated roar, the plane vibrated slightly and Concorde shot down the runway next to us with blue flames shooting out of its afterburners. It was a heck of an impressive sight but not exactly a quiet one! While fuel costs are certainly an effect when they were shutting down the Concorde program one expert commented that a plane designed today would be hugely more efficient but that the fact it would still make a sonic boom would limit it to so few routes the market would be too small to make it financially viable. If NASA can fix this then it could well cause a renaissance in supersonic flight.
...long slow lingering undeath that will now be drawn out for another three years before the zombified corpse of a once ubiquitous application shudders to a halt, ekes out its last cry of "warning flash player is out of date" and collapses into a pile of dust. Was that what you had in mind because it seems to be what Adobe is planning?
Someone who is unable or unwilling to work is still not employed, therefore they are "unemployed"...
You could indeed define it that way. In fact, you could even go further and say that my dog also does not have a job and therefore is unemployed. However, these are not particularly useful definitions when it comes to gauging either the economy, social issues or planning for the cost of future benefit payments.
That depends on what your next job is. If it involves working in an environment which may contain strong magnetic fields e.g. NMR/MRI, particle accelerators etc you need that thing removed. Also, depending on how paranoid airport security becomes, travelling with it in the future may be problematic.
Sometimes there are good reasons to redefine these things. Sometimes the government does stuff that genuinely helps people. Mostly it's just lies, if not outright then by omission or cherry picking.
I agree (I can even remember the existence of some of the stories if not the details). Nevertheless, if it really is due to omissions and lies and the author knows this for a fact as they claim then surely s/he should be able to point out what these lies and omissions are? As you say we seem to be in a post-truth era which means that the only way I am likely to believe a media story is when it includes verifiable details and facts to back up the argument. This is even more important if it is suggesting something I think it likely to have happened since enduring fake news stories are usually based on something most people think is very likely.
When the government screws up, you're stuck with it (short of revolution).
I don't know where you live but around here we have these things called elections which let us change governments without all the shooting, rioting and deaths of a typical revolution. You should try them, they aren't fantastic but they are a lot better than the alternative.
Maybe you should read the article. The author is pretty clear that peer review practices are his focus here.
Maybe you should engage your brain while reading the article. Whatever the author's stated focus was, what he showed is that there are fraudulent journals out there.
In either case, these journals do have scientists working for them as editors and reviewers, but the expected outcomes don't align with what the process promises.
I'm sure that's what they claim but the evidence pretty much conclusively shows that this is simply not true. You aren't, by any chance, a reviewer for one of these journals because you have seem to have taken the claims made by both the article and the journals completely at face value?
At least some of the changes were done deliberately in order to mislead. This is called "lying".
Where is the evidence of that? The article itself lacks any evidence of deliberately misleading information. However, the authoer of the article itself is very misleading when s/he claims that the "true" figure is 21.5% which they apparently obtain using all people of working age. This does not exclude stay-at-home parents, students and those too disabled or sick to work and so is clearly going to be a wild overestimate.
While it might be true that the current statistics are not giving a true picture but if you want to claim that this is due to lying i.e. a deliberate attempt to mislead, you need to explain why. Governments may be untrustworthy but so are the media so I'm certainly not going to take the word of some random website without a solid, evidence-backed argument.
The view that "peer review is bullshit" is a simplified version of a commonly held view among professional scientists (I am one).
What they did here has nothing to do with peer review. The take home point from this, and all the other similar examples like the other month's dog on the editorial board, is that there are fake journals out there claiming to be serious scientific publications which perform rigorous peer review but which are really there to con money out of young and/or naive scientists. Peer review may have its faults but this is not one of them.
For relativistic quantum mechanics, the interactions are quantized too and you have to integrate over all possible interactions to get the total effect. The Feynman diagrams for these will include a free-particle Dirac term which should contain Zitterbewegung. I'd be amazed if some theorist has not already done and shown this years ago unless it was regarded as too obvious a result to worry about.
It's been known for quite a while longer than the article suggests for relativistic particles. Zitterbewegung (which is German for trembling motion) was first suggested in 1930 by Schrodinger.
All circuits are analog. Period. That's the physics of it.
If you are going to get that pedantic then no you are wrong in two ways. First go look up quantum mechanics and then know that this governs how semi-conductors work. These devices transition between two, binary states in a non-analogue way smeared out a little by thermal effects. However, the end result of this is that they allow a certain amount of charge to pass which is either above some threshold or not and so we treat it as a one or zero.
Hence the circuit is digital because we define our own, artificial thresholds to quantize how we treat the result. This is what makes it digital. If you also happen to be using semiconductors then it is also quantized at a more fundamental level by the physics in the semiconductor...and these quantum effects get increasingly important as we shrink the size of circuits.
where should be the next line indentation be? C++ allows You to unambiguously decide that
You got that entirely the wrong way round. C++ is utterly ambiguous with the indentation - you can make it anything you want it to be. It's python where the indentation is entirely non-ambiguous. If the indentation is the same as the line above the statement is in the if statement. If it is less then it is in the loop. Most auto-indenters will start with the indentation the same and all you have to do is press delete once so if you are really pedantic enough to worry about key presses it's marginally easier since you don't need to hold down shift+[, just press delete but I can't believe that's a serious argument! If your auto-indenter is not getting that right find a better one. Python's syntax is really not that hard at all, just slightly different to what you are used to.
No reasonable judge would let you sue someone for reporting a crime.
What guarantee do you have that you'll get a reasonable judge? Besides, who said anything about a crime? It is entirely possible for companies to engage in highly unethical, but completely legal, activity e.g. hiring child labourers in third world sweat shops to make their products which now does not happen because it was brought to the publics attention. Zero hour contracts are another example.
Large companies are beginning to have as much power over our lives as governments and this means that they need to start having the same limits on that power as a government.
The number of spaces preceding a statement determines the scope of that statement? Wow. That seems totally nonsensical to me.
Any more than the presence of a curly bracket 42 lines earlier determines the scope of a statement in C++? I agree it seems strange at first but it is actually really easy to adapt to and by forcing correct indentation it actually makes code easier to read.
Yes, but he's a CEO and talking about his company to reporters, so he has to put at least some positive spin on it.
A "positive spin" would be saying that we are spending lots of money making fantastic shows to rapidly grow our subscriber base and look at the millions we added in the last quarter so our plan is working, we stand to make lots of money and our customers are ecstatic about us but yes we will have some short term negative cash flow. Saying "our negative cash flow shows we are a success" suggests the CEO is spinning so fast he does know which direction reality is anymore which, were I an investor in Netflix, would concern me, not reassure me.
pure analong systems have been doing this for decades
The article is about an algorithm for analogue to digital converters. So what you are claiming is that you had pure analogue, analogue to digital converters? Replacing silicon transistors with valves does not change the fact that the circuit is still digital. Valve computers were still digital computers, they just used a different switching technology.
Actually, I would have thought that a hypersonic missile might be good against the other, ICBM hypersonic missiles. If it goes fast enough it might be able to get to the ICBM while it is in space and possibly easier to hit since it is ballistic at that point. It will not be enough to stop all the ICBMs launched by another superpower so it will have no effect on the overall balance of power but it should be enough to stop the smaller number of missiles rogue nations like North Korea possess.
Perhaps 70mm film is a bit like 3D: it only adds something when it's done right,
The only thing 3D adds is a few dollars to the ticket price and a migraine after an hour of watching it. All I can see film adding is the occasional speck of dust or scratch to the picture. If that's so important I'm sure there is some digital algorithm which can add similar imperfections. This sort of thing strikes me as nothing more than audiophiles becoming videophiles.
It's not Netflix's fault that an ISP is throttling their bandwidth and it is certainly not their fault that they prevent your chosen method to circumvent this from working for reasons which have nothing to do with bandwidth. The fact that an ISP is doing this is why we need net neutrality.
Some modern trains are more integrated than the old model of an engine plus carriages. This allows them to have larger, flexible connections between the rigid carriages than the narrow corridors which can be more easily decoupled. The cost is that these wider connections are more permanent. I expect that they could be disconnected in a major service but certainly not on a day-to-day basis. Hence a 'train' is far less ephemeral than it used to be especially when the article mentions they only have four of them.
Hopefully not your defining understanding of physics
If you are watching science fiction to improve your understanding of physics you are doing something very, very wrong. Space 1999 was the very first science fiction show I can remember watching as a kid (shortly followed by Thunderbirds) and I'm now a physics professor. Yes looking back at them now the physics was appallingly bad at times but I'm sure they played a role in sparking my interest in science fact.
Slashdot Mirror
The sonic boom is not really an issue. The actual sonic boom from Concorde at cruise altitude...posed no real risk.
No, the sonic boom really was a serious issue and was the reason why Concorde was limited to flying to the eastern seaboard of the US. It was not that it was dangerous but more the noise which you can hear in in this video around the 1 minute mark from a plane claimed to be at 50-60,000 feet. It is certainly not negligible and you would not want to be hearing that multiple times a day if you were living under a flight path.
The take-off noise is also not negligible. As a grad student, I remember waiting on a plane to take off at Heathrow one evening when there was a deep-throated roar, the plane vibrated slightly and Concorde shot down the runway next to us with blue flames shooting out of its afterburners. It was a heck of an impressive sight but not exactly a quiet one! While fuel costs are certainly an effect when they were shutting down the Concorde program one expert commented that a plane designed today would be hugely more efficient but that the fact it would still make a sonic boom would limit it to so few routes the market would be too small to make it financially viable. If NASA can fix this then it could well cause a renaissance in supersonic flight.
...long slow lingering undeath that will now be drawn out for another three years before the zombified corpse of a once ubiquitous application shudders to a halt, ekes out its last cry of "warning flash player is out of date" and collapses into a pile of dust. Was that what you had in mind because it seems to be what Adobe is planning?
Someone who is unable or unwilling to work is still not employed, therefore they are "unemployed"...
You could indeed define it that way. In fact, you could even go further and say that my dog also does not have a job and therefore is unemployed. However, these are not particularly useful definitions when it comes to gauging either the economy, social issues or planning for the cost of future benefit payments.
There's no need to remove it.
That depends on what your next job is. If it involves working in an environment which may contain strong magnetic fields e.g. NMR/MRI, particle accelerators etc you need that thing removed. Also, depending on how paranoid airport security becomes, travelling with it in the future may be problematic.
Sometimes there are good reasons to redefine these things. Sometimes the government does stuff that genuinely helps people. Mostly it's just lies, if not outright then by omission or cherry picking.
I agree (I can even remember the existence of some of the stories if not the details). Nevertheless, if it really is due to omissions and lies and the author knows this for a fact as they claim then surely s/he should be able to point out what these lies and omissions are? As you say we seem to be in a post-truth era which means that the only way I am likely to believe a media story is when it includes verifiable details and facts to back up the argument. This is even more important if it is suggesting something I think it likely to have happened since enduring fake news stories are usually based on something most people think is very likely.
When the government screws up, you're stuck with it (short of revolution).
I don't know where you live but around here we have these things called elections which let us change governments without all the shooting, rioting and deaths of a typical revolution. You should try them, they aren't fantastic but they are a lot better than the alternative.
Maybe you should read the article. The author is pretty clear that peer review practices are his focus here.
Maybe you should engage your brain while reading the article. Whatever the author's stated focus was, what he showed is that there are fraudulent journals out there.
In either case, these journals do have scientists working for them as editors and reviewers, but the expected outcomes don't align with what the process promises.
I'm sure that's what they claim but the evidence pretty much conclusively shows that this is simply not true. You aren't, by any chance, a reviewer for one of these journals because you have seem to have taken the claims made by both the article and the journals completely at face value?
That's a great solution if you are a smart user with a dumbphone. However, the problem we have here is a smartphone with a dumb user.
At least some of the changes were done deliberately in order to mislead. This is called "lying".
Where is the evidence of that? The article itself lacks any evidence of deliberately misleading information. However, the authoer of the article itself is very misleading when s/he claims that the "true" figure is 21.5% which they apparently obtain using all people of working age. This does not exclude stay-at-home parents, students and those too disabled or sick to work and so is clearly going to be a wild overestimate.
While it might be true that the current statistics are not giving a true picture but if you want to claim that this is due to lying i.e. a deliberate attempt to mislead, you need to explain why. Governments may be untrustworthy but so are the media so I'm certainly not going to take the word of some random website without a solid, evidence-backed argument.
Yes but just wait until they integrate it with Alexa.
The view that "peer review is bullshit" is a simplified version of a commonly held view among professional scientists (I am one).
What they did here has nothing to do with peer review. The take home point from this, and all the other similar examples like the other month's dog on the editorial board, is that there are fake journals out there claiming to be serious scientific publications which perform rigorous peer review but which are really there to con money out of young and/or naive scientists. Peer review may have its faults but this is not one of them.
For relativistic quantum mechanics, the interactions are quantized too and you have to integrate over all possible interactions to get the total effect. The Feynman diagrams for these will include a free-particle Dirac term which should contain Zitterbewegung. I'd be amazed if some theorist has not already done and shown this years ago unless it was regarded as too obvious a result to worry about.
It's been known for quite a while longer than the article suggests for relativistic particles. Zitterbewegung (which is German for trembling motion) was first suggested in 1930 by Schrodinger.
FFS why would you hook up a battlefield swarm to the internet?
So you can make "Call of Duty: Ender's Game Edition"?
All circuits are analog. Period. That's the physics of it.
If you are going to get that pedantic then no you are wrong in two ways. First go look up quantum mechanics and then know that this governs how semi-conductors work. These devices transition between two, binary states in a non-analogue way smeared out a little by thermal effects. However, the end result of this is that they allow a certain amount of charge to pass which is either above some threshold or not and so we treat it as a one or zero.
Hence the circuit is digital because we define our own, artificial thresholds to quantize how we treat the result. This is what makes it digital. If you also happen to be using semiconductors then it is also quantized at a more fundamental level by the physics in the semiconductor...and these quantum effects get increasingly important as we shrink the size of circuits.
where should be the next line indentation be? C++ allows You to unambiguously decide that
You got that entirely the wrong way round. C++ is utterly ambiguous with the indentation - you can make it anything you want it to be. It's python where the indentation is entirely non-ambiguous. If the indentation is the same as the line above the statement is in the if statement. If it is less then it is in the loop. Most auto-indenters will start with the indentation the same and all you have to do is press delete once so if you are really pedantic enough to worry about key presses it's marginally easier since you don't need to hold down shift+[, just press delete but I can't believe that's a serious argument! If your auto-indenter is not getting that right find a better one. Python's syntax is really not that hard at all, just slightly different to what you are used to.
No reasonable judge would let you sue someone for reporting a crime.
What guarantee do you have that you'll get a reasonable judge? Besides, who said anything about a crime? It is entirely possible for companies to engage in highly unethical, but completely legal, activity e.g. hiring child labourers in third world sweat shops to make their products which now does not happen because it was brought to the publics attention. Zero hour contracts are another example.
Large companies are beginning to have as much power over our lives as governments and this means that they need to start having the same limits on that power as a government.
The number of spaces preceding a statement determines the scope of that statement? Wow. That seems totally nonsensical to me.
Any more than the presence of a curly bracket 42 lines earlier determines the scope of a statement in C++? I agree it seems strange at first but it is actually really easy to adapt to and by forcing correct indentation it actually makes code easier to read.
Yes, but he's a CEO and talking about his company to reporters, so he has to put at least some positive spin on it.
A "positive spin" would be saying that we are spending lots of money making fantastic shows to rapidly grow our subscriber base and look at the millions we added in the last quarter so our plan is working, we stand to make lots of money and our customers are ecstatic about us but yes we will have some short term negative cash flow. Saying "our negative cash flow shows we are a success" suggests the CEO is spinning so fast he does know which direction reality is anymore which, were I an investor in Netflix, would concern me, not reassure me.
pure analong systems have been doing this for decades
The article is about an algorithm for analogue to digital converters. So what you are claiming is that you had pure analogue, analogue to digital converters? Replacing silicon transistors with valves does not change the fact that the circuit is still digital. Valve computers were still digital computers, they just used a different switching technology.
Actually, I would have thought that a hypersonic missile might be good against the other, ICBM hypersonic missiles. If it goes fast enough it might be able to get to the ICBM while it is in space and possibly easier to hit since it is ballistic at that point. It will not be enough to stop all the ICBMs launched by another superpower so it will have no effect on the overall balance of power but it should be enough to stop the smaller number of missiles rogue nations like North Korea possess.
Perhaps 70mm film is a bit like 3D: it only adds something when it's done right,
The only thing 3D adds is a few dollars to the ticket price and a migraine after an hour of watching it. All I can see film adding is the occasional speck of dust or scratch to the picture. If that's so important I'm sure there is some digital algorithm which can add similar imperfections. This sort of thing strikes me as nothing more than audiophiles becoming videophiles.
It's not Netflix's fault that an ISP is throttling their bandwidth and it is certainly not their fault that they prevent your chosen method to circumvent this from working for reasons which have nothing to do with bandwidth. The fact that an ISP is doing this is why we need net neutrality.
How can you name a train?
Some modern trains are more integrated than the old model of an engine plus carriages. This allows them to have larger, flexible connections between the rigid carriages than the narrow corridors which can be more easily decoupled. The cost is that these wider connections are more permanent. I expect that they could be disconnected in a major service but certainly not on a day-to-day basis. Hence a 'train' is far less ephemeral than it used to be especially when the article mentions they only have four of them.
Hopefully not your defining understanding of physics
If you are watching science fiction to improve your understanding of physics you are doing something very, very wrong. Space 1999 was the very first science fiction show I can remember watching as a kid (shortly followed by Thunderbirds) and I'm now a physics professor. Yes looking back at them now the physics was appallingly bad at times but I'm sure they played a role in sparking my interest in science fact.