Is there a German or Argentinian version of 'Game of Thrones'
No, but there is a British one on Netflix called "The Crown". However nudity is limited to the occassional ankle, violence is just seemingly polite but extremely biting remarks, weddings are white not red and Hadrian built the wall in the north but once they get to the Brexit era UKIP are will be just like the white-riders that threaten to destroy the kingdom. Try it out - it just might be your cup of tea!
No, one particle per cubic METRE is the density of intergalactic space. The density of interstellar space i.e. the space between the stars in a galaxy, is variable but averages to about 1 million particles per cubic metre which is the same as one particle per cubic centimetre.
I have serious doubts about this study too but to be fair though cavemen from the palaeolithic had a life expectancy of 33 years so while I doubt this was due to air pollution, other things killed them off so rapidly that if there were any effect from air pollution we would not notice.
Considering one of their recommendations was to use an oven hood
A better recommendation would be to actually use an oven and not a hob. I don't even know how you can roast something like a chicken properly on the hob and I'd not be surprised if you end up burning some part of it releasing lots of pollution since a hob only heats the bottom.
Well, if 0.2 atoms/cubic centimetre is an atmosphere then there is no outer space because the density of interstellar space is about 1 particle per cubic centimetre so logically this would imply that the galaxy has an atmosphere.
You have to admire Equifax's completely brazen approach to privacy and security though. They get paid to collect and curate a database of extremely private and sensitive data and then, when they screw up and it gets breached, people pay them even more money to lock their credit reports. That's why they do value our privacy and security: everytime it gets violated they make more money.
This win-win model is almost as good as the one the phone companies pull where they sell you a phone number and service, then sell your name and number to advertising services and finally sell you a call blocking service to prevent ads from reaching you: that's win-win-win!
Well, to be completely fair by the time a company is sending out one of these breach notices they probably are taking our privacy and security seriously, or at least a lot more seriously than they were before the breach. The problem is that it is now far too late.
Those values are far too low and that's the problem: companies do value our privacy and security but the value they assign to it is woefully low. If your information is leaked the cost of clearing up any identity theft that results is far, far more than the numbers you gave. Indeed, you can't even lock your credit report for this.
A better way would be to simply make companies liable for all "reasonable" costs resulting from a violation of a customers privacy and security. This will make them pay for the time, effort and money it costs to either prevent or clear up identity theft which will make them very much aware of the monetary value of privacy and security.
Einstein derived E=MC^2. That's a neater trick than measuring it.
First, he actually derived E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4. E=mc^2 is the special case of a body at rest. Secondly deriving an expression is certainly not any neater than testing it experimentally. It is only when we have both theory and experiment consistent with each other that our knowledge advances and devising an experiment to test theory can be just as hard, if not harder, than coming up with the theory in the first place. The Higgs boson is an excellent example of this.
iOS is far, far too restrictive to ever be a desktop replacement in its current form. Any science or engineering degree requires some level of programming which is almost impossible under these OS's so at least some "young people" will get used to desktop OS's. Plus, if you want to develop an app for these OS's you need a desktop OS to do this.
The only way that iOS or Android will replace macOS or Linux is if they end up becoming a lot more like macOS or Linux.
Nitpicking is not the same as finding the blaring cases of abuse.
You can certainly say that about some of the examples I gave which were intended to show that we all think that other coutries are unethical in some regard. However, I think most of us in Europe and Canada would regard the sanctioned torture of prisoners by the US government is a "blaring case of abuse" and not at all "nitpicking". This is a major human rights abuse and is the sort of thing you expect from a country like the US.
You can contrast this with the European view under which you are in the risk of getting sued by the state or state-like organs for politically incorrect opinions.
This is exactly my point. From the US perspective, the controls of free speech in Europe and Canada are "unethical" so should you stop trading with us for ethical reasons? Surely it is better to keep telling us that free speech is really important to encourage us to stop this sort of stupidity? We can all find things in another country that we think are unethical but that is a reason to engage with them to persuade them to change while they do the same with us so that we can all improve.
I'd be pretty careful going that route. By all accounts, Russia has been far more effective at implementing regime change in the US than vice versa. As for leading by example, no it does not work instantly, it takes time and I accept that in extreme cases, politics, not ethics, require that we take a firmer stance. However, if the argument is purely ethical then I remain unconvinced that forcing the issue with economic or military threats is going to help. If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you that e.g. using plastic is unethical you will probably give up plastic but only for as long as the gun is pointed at your head. If you want to change someone's mind so that you do not have to constantly threaten them then you have to engage with them.
By European/Canadian standards you make the same argument that it is unethical to purchase products from the US where workers are paid below-poverty wages, may not have access to health care and can be fired for disagreeing politically with their employer, plus some types of torture are deemed ok etc. So should we all stop buying each other's products or should we accept that the best way to change another's opinion is through leading by example and discussion rather than by refusing to talk/trade with them?
This is irrelevant. If they fly the plane empty with no passengers to preserve the slot/move the plane, forcing everyone to get a ticket to the hub, they would make more money than _reducing_ the cost of the ticket when you purchase an extra leg. Your argument provides a motivation to make the extra leg available for free but not for, effectively, paying passengers to take the extra flight.
It's not always done by airlines for shits and giggles. A lot of airports have frequency requirements for landing slots, so instead of flying completely empty planes on routes to preserve slot allocation (which does happen), they may offer reduced fares to those cities.
Your argument makes absolutely zero sense. If they flew an empty plane then they would make no passenger revenue for that flight. However, by reducing the cost of a ticket when the passenger flies an additional leg they will actually now have negative revenue because the passenger is paying less than they would have if they had got a ticket just to the hub.
Your scenario provides motivation for not adding anything to the cost of the ticket to fly the extra leg (they are going to fly the plane anyway and the extra convenience might attract more passengers) but your argument provide no economic reason to reduce the cost of the ticket for flying an extra leg. I suspect the difference is because a different destination is a different market with different competitive pressures. So really it is just the airline trying to screw more money out of people staying near a hub because they know they will pay it.
It's a form of "gaming the system" that can cost someone else money.
How? Provided the passenger had no checked bags (which would be really hard to get back so I doubt this was the case) there is no way that not taking a flight results in a higher cost to the airline, in fact the exact opposite is going to be true since they can save on fuel.
As I understand it an air ticket is a contract you purchase from the airline that they will transport you between two locations on a certain set of flights. You have not promised that you will take the flights you have merely purchased the right to take those flights. If you decide at any point not to take a flight then, while you forfeit the cost of the ticket, there is nothing they can do. If not then this would mean that, in addition to forcing you to buy another ticket, the airline could sue any passenger who failed to turn up for even the start of a flight e.g. due to traffic delays etc. Good luck to any airline that starts doing that!
Wrong again. While it is not an "opinion", his statement is a fact that is wrong, a false-fact.
You have things confused. The statement that the OP was claiming was an opinion was "muon showers are reaching the Earth due to time dilation therefore proving that time dilation is real". This is most definitely true.
I really have trouble with the phrase "established scientific fact". There is no such thing even possible.
Don't be daft. Relativity, which is what explains the muon's survival, is the most precisely tested physical law that has ever existed. If you cannot call this "a fact" then absolutely nothing is a fact, scientific or otherwise, because there is nothing else which has been tested and confirmed to such an amazing degree of precision. Even if this fact is not absolutely right any change due to new physics will be at a tiny level (less than one part in a quadrillion) because that is about the level of accuracy we have tested relativity to. How often can you be sure of a fact to that degree of certainty?
You can use their app to have a speedometer and odometer. It also lets you lock it, and get exact battery details.
How exactly do you SAFELY use a speedometer on your phone while riding the scooter? It sounds like this sort of thing has more than just cyber-safety issues. All of these functions could be replaced by a simple LCD display for minimal cost and far safer functionality.
A clock does not measure time. Time is a concept. Not a thing.
Time is not just a concept it is part of the physical reality of the universe in the same way that space is. Indeed, relativity tells us that space and time and both relative.
If the clock on a satellite moves more slowly, it is because something, in this case gravity, has caused the mechanism of the clock to move more slowly. Time has not slowed down.
Part right but part wrong. If you were stood next to the clock you would not notice any difference in the tick rate so, in one sense, the clock has not slowed down. However, if you are somewhere else deeper or higher in the gravitational well of the Earth, or the clock is moving relative to you, then you will see that the ticking of the clock is now slower. This will happen irrespective of the clock mechanism.
The reason for this is that time and space are relative. Gravitational fields and relative motion both rotate the space-time axes of the distance clock relative to your own. This means that part of the clock time direction now lies along your space dimension. If you imagine that I am holding a piece of paper in front of you and then rotate it so that the top of the paper moves away from you and the bottom moves towards you then, if you were unable to perceive depth, it would look as if the paper were now shorter. This is what is happening here only the length dimension is rotated into your time direction so you cannot see it in the same way and it apears that the clock is now shorter. For the time component, this "shortening" is seen by you as an apparent slowdown of time for the clock.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because they have already been replaced by AI: just look at Cleverbot.
Seems sort of appropriate for a discussion on "the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make".
Is there a German or Argentinian version of 'Game of Thrones'
No, but there is a British one on Netflix called "The Crown". However nudity is limited to the occassional ankle, violence is just seemingly polite but extremely biting remarks, weddings are white not red and Hadrian built the wall in the north but once they get to the Brexit era UKIP are will be just like the white-riders that threaten to destroy the kingdom. Try it out - it just might be your cup of tea!
No, one particle per cubic METRE is the density of intergalactic space. The density of interstellar space i.e. the space between the stars in a galaxy, is variable but averages to about 1 million particles per cubic metre which is the same as one particle per cubic centimetre.
I have serious doubts about this study too but to be fair though cavemen from the palaeolithic had a life expectancy of 33 years so while I doubt this was due to air pollution, other things killed them off so rapidly that if there were any effect from air pollution we would not notice.
Considering one of their recommendations was to use an oven hood
A better recommendation would be to actually use an oven and not a hob. I don't even know how you can roast something like a chicken properly on the hob and I'd not be surprised if you end up burning some part of it releasing lots of pollution since a hob only heats the bottom.
Well, if 0.2 atoms/cubic centimetre is an atmosphere then there is no outer space because the density of interstellar space is about 1 particle per cubic centimetre so logically this would imply that the galaxy has an atmosphere.
It's just a guess but I suspect he may not know how ignorant he is.
You have to admire Equifax's completely brazen approach to privacy and security though. They get paid to collect and curate a database of extremely private and sensitive data and then, when they screw up and it gets breached, people pay them even more money to lock their credit reports. That's why they do value our privacy and security: everytime it gets violated they make more money.
This win-win model is almost as good as the one the phone companies pull where they sell you a phone number and service, then sell your name and number to advertising services and finally sell you a call blocking service to prevent ads from reaching you: that's win-win-win!
Well, to be completely fair by the time a company is sending out one of these breach notices they probably are taking our privacy and security seriously, or at least a lot more seriously than they were before the breach. The problem is that it is now far too late.
Those values are far too low and that's the problem: companies do value our privacy and security but the value they assign to it is woefully low. If your information is leaked the cost of clearing up any identity theft that results is far, far more than the numbers you gave. Indeed, you can't even lock your credit report for this.
A better way would be to simply make companies liable for all "reasonable" costs resulting from a violation of a customers privacy and security. This will make them pay for the time, effort and money it costs to either prevent or clear up identity theft which will make them very much aware of the monetary value of privacy and security.
Einstein derived E=MC^2. That's a neater trick than measuring it.
First, he actually derived E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4. E=mc^2 is the special case of a body at rest. Secondly deriving an expression is certainly not any neater than testing it experimentally. It is only when we have both theory and experiment consistent with each other that our knowledge advances and devising an experiment to test theory can be just as hard, if not harder, than coming up with the theory in the first place. The Higgs boson is an excellent example of this.
Over $34 million will be provided for the upgrade which makes LIGO sound like the latest iPhone.
I know Apple has been putting up their prices but if $34 million sounds like an iPhone upgrade then things have clearly got out of hand.
iOS is far, far too restrictive to ever be a desktop replacement in its current form. Any science or engineering degree requires some level of programming which is almost impossible under these OS's so at least some "young people" will get used to desktop OS's. Plus, if you want to develop an app for these OS's you need a desktop OS to do this.
The only way that iOS or Android will replace macOS or Linux is if they end up becoming a lot more like macOS or Linux.
Nitpicking is not the same as finding the blaring cases of abuse.
You can certainly say that about some of the examples I gave which were intended to show that we all think that other coutries are unethical in some regard. However, I think most of us in Europe and Canada would regard the sanctioned torture of prisoners by the US government is a "blaring case of abuse" and not at all "nitpicking". This is a major human rights abuse and is the sort of thing you expect from a country like the US.
You can contrast this with the European view under which you are in the risk of getting sued by the state or state-like organs for politically incorrect opinions.
This is exactly my point. From the US perspective, the controls of free speech in Europe and Canada are "unethical" so should you stop trading with us for ethical reasons? Surely it is better to keep telling us that free speech is really important to encourage us to stop this sort of stupidity? We can all find things in another country that we think are unethical but that is a reason to engage with them to persuade them to change while they do the same with us so that we can all improve.
Regime change.
I'd be pretty careful going that route. By all accounts, Russia has been far more effective at implementing regime change in the US than vice versa. As for leading by example, no it does not work instantly, it takes time and I accept that in extreme cases, politics, not ethics, require that we take a firmer stance. However, if the argument is purely ethical then I remain unconvinced that forcing the issue with economic or military threats is going to help. If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you that e.g. using plastic is unethical you will probably give up plastic but only for as long as the gun is pointed at your head. If you want to change someone's mind so that you do not have to constantly threaten them then you have to engage with them.
By European/Canadian standards you make the same argument that it is unethical to purchase products from the US where workers are paid below-poverty wages, may not have access to health care and can be fired for disagreeing politically with their employer, plus some types of torture are deemed ok etc. So should we all stop buying each other's products or should we accept that the best way to change another's opinion is through leading by example and discussion rather than by refusing to talk/trade with them?
This is irrelevant. If they fly the plane empty with no passengers to preserve the slot/move the plane, forcing everyone to get a ticket to the hub, they would make more money than _reducing_ the cost of the ticket when you purchase an extra leg. Your argument provides a motivation to make the extra leg available for free but not for, effectively, paying passengers to take the extra flight.
It's not always done by airlines for shits and giggles. A lot of airports have frequency requirements for landing slots, so instead of flying completely empty planes on routes to preserve slot allocation (which does happen), they may offer reduced fares to those cities.
Your argument makes absolutely zero sense. If they flew an empty plane then they would make no passenger revenue for that flight. However, by reducing the cost of a ticket when the passenger flies an additional leg they will actually now have negative revenue because the passenger is paying less than they would have if they had got a ticket just to the hub.
Your scenario provides motivation for not adding anything to the cost of the ticket to fly the extra leg (they are going to fly the plane anyway and the extra convenience might attract more passengers) but your argument provide no economic reason to reduce the cost of the ticket for flying an extra leg. I suspect the difference is because a different destination is a different market with different competitive pressures. So really it is just the airline trying to screw more money out of people staying near a hub because they know they will pay it.
It's a form of "gaming the system" that can cost someone else money.
How? Provided the passenger had no checked bags (which would be really hard to get back so I doubt this was the case) there is no way that not taking a flight results in a higher cost to the airline, in fact the exact opposite is going to be true since they can save on fuel.
As I understand it an air ticket is a contract you purchase from the airline that they will transport you between two locations on a certain set of flights. You have not promised that you will take the flights you have merely purchased the right to take those flights. If you decide at any point not to take a flight then, while you forfeit the cost of the ticket, there is nothing they can do. If not then this would mean that, in addition to forcing you to buy another ticket, the airline could sue any passenger who failed to turn up for even the start of a flight e.g. due to traffic delays etc. Good luck to any airline that starts doing that!
Wrong again. While it is not an "opinion", his statement is a fact that is wrong, a false-fact.
You have things confused. The statement that the OP was claiming was an opinion was "muon showers are reaching the Earth due to time dilation therefore proving that time dilation is real". This is most definitely true.
I really have trouble with the phrase "established scientific fact". There is no such thing even possible.
Don't be daft. Relativity, which is what explains the muon's survival, is the most precisely tested physical law that has ever existed. If you cannot call this "a fact" then absolutely nothing is a fact, scientific or otherwise, because there is nothing else which has been tested and confirmed to such an amazing degree of precision. Even if this fact is not absolutely right any change due to new physics will be at a tiny level (less than one part in a quadrillion) because that is about the level of accuracy we have tested relativity to. How often can you be sure of a fact to that degree of certainty?
You can use their app to have a speedometer and odometer. It also lets you lock it, and get exact battery details.
How exactly do you SAFELY use a speedometer on your phone while riding the scooter? It sounds like this sort of thing has more than just cyber-safety issues. All of these functions could be replaced by a simple LCD display for minimal cost and far safer functionality.
A clock does not measure time. Time is a concept. Not a thing.
Time is not just a concept it is part of the physical reality of the universe in the same way that space is. Indeed, relativity tells us that space and time and both relative.
If the clock on a satellite moves more slowly, it is because something, in this case gravity, has caused the mechanism of the clock to move more slowly. Time has not slowed down.
Part right but part wrong. If you were stood next to the clock you would not notice any difference in the tick rate so, in one sense, the clock has not slowed down. However, if you are somewhere else deeper or higher in the gravitational well of the Earth, or the clock is moving relative to you, then you will see that the ticking of the clock is now slower. This will happen irrespective of the clock mechanism.
The reason for this is that time and space are relative. Gravitational fields and relative motion both rotate the space-time axes of the distance clock relative to your own. This means that part of the clock time direction now lies along your space dimension. If you imagine that I am holding a piece of paper in front of you and then rotate it so that the top of the paper moves away from you and the bottom moves towards you then, if you were unable to perceive depth, it would look as if the paper were now shorter. This is what is happening here only the length dimension is rotated into your time direction so you cannot see it in the same way and it apears that the clock is now shorter. For the time component, this "shortening" is seen by you as an apparent slowdown of time for the clock.