He learned Chinese and did after all, bring the worlds people together... he leads an incredibly productive life...
Chinese is literally the least remarkable language to learn given that over 2 billion people have already done this. As for bringing people together, I think Facebook has done the exact opposite. It lets people post crap about their life online so they can avoid actually having any meaningful conversations with others.
Numerous studies have shown that Facebook use leads to a decline in mental health. In many ways, it is the McDonalds of the internet: wildly popular but bad for society's health. I'd hardly define creating something like that "productive" despite it being extremely financially rewarding.
Who cares that they only support this for their own benefit? In this case, their and our interests align extremely well: we want to be able to choose from whom to purchase internet services and they want us to have the freedom to choose because their services are currently a consumer favourite. Give it a few years and their opinion may change if they suddenly find they are competing with a new startup but the longer net neutrality lasts the better established and harder to change it becomes.
Even the current moviehouse 3D technology isn't all that great if you ask me.
Also like cinema 3D the Occulus Rift does not work well with glasses (it's possible but a major pain to put it on and take it off). That's about 42% of men and over half of women so you have almost halved your potential market before you even start.
Yes, but with their new name they will have to change their motto: "Guardians of the High Frontier" seems so sensible and, well, down to earth. Might I suggest: "To infinity and beyond!"?
Uhh no. Electrons carry charge intrinsically. Moving through a conductive material is not necessary...
Oh dear. Electricity is the motion of charge through a conductor. Hence the reason an electron carries the charge in a conductor is because (a) it has a charge and (b) it can move through materials. The video you linked is nothing more than a description of how electric and magnetic fields are linked via a Lorentz boost which has almost nothing to do with what we are talking about but note how it did say that the electrons moved to carry the current, no neutrinos in sight!
in materials baryons have enormously higher masses and are subject to the strong nuclear force
this is not why, or at least not the immediate issue. We need to figure out a way to keep these kind of particles around long enough...
No actually we don't because nature handily provides us with another well known baryon, the proton. The reason that it is the electron, and not the proton, which is the charge carrier is because "in materials baryons have enormously higher masses and are subject to the strong nuclear force". This means that their bound state wavefunctions do not overlap with adjacent nuclei and so they cannot move like the electrons can. The reason you can't find much discussion about this on Google is because no physicist needs to think about it. We already know protons are not charge carriers and swapping out protons for a more exotic form of charged baryon in a material is still not going to make them carry the charge because with an even larger mass they will be even less mobile than the already non-mobile protons.
Inside protons and neutrons you could say yes, they're free
It's nowhere near as simple as that. Quarks are subject to asymptotic freedom which means that the higher the energy the less bound they become. However, the size scale you look at is directly related to the energy: the smaller the scale you look at a proton the higher the energy you need. So if you just look at a little below the size of the proton the quarks will still be relatively strongly bound but, as you ramp up the energy, the quarks will become more free...but something stranger also happens.
As the energy ramps up the apparent consistency of the proton changes. The reason for this is that at smaller scales/higher energies there is enough energy that virtual quark pairs and gluons carry some of the energy and momentum of the proton - these are called sea quarks, as opposed to the valence quarks which we typically quote. The result is that by the time you get to LHC energies the quarks are generally only a small part of the proton and most of the proton is just gluons. So the typical model we use for LHC collisions is colliding two bags of gluons - no quarks involved unless the gluon-production channel for whatever you are looking for is heavily suppressed.
However electricity is actual a function of electrons (a leptron called electron neutrino) and they carry a negative charge
No, the electron neutrino is neutral, just like every neutrino. It's the electron which carries the charge. The reason electrons carry charge is because they can move through a conductive material. Apart from being exceedingly unstable this particle will only ever carry electric charge in a plasma because in materials baryons have enormously higher masses and are subject to the strong nuclear force.
The far higher mass and the strong nuclear charge means that they bind together to form nuclei which are so heavy that their bound states are very small (1e-14m) compared to the far lighter electrons which have bound states on the order of 1e-10m. This larger bound state for electrons means that in the right conditions it can overlap with the electron states of other atoms which allows the electrons to move through the material. The nuclear bound states never overlap unless you heat the material to an exceedingly high temperature so they have enough energy to get close enough to each other. This is why fusion reactors require such insanely high temperatures to work.
Real, yes, stable absolutely not! Heavy quarks in bound states decay very rapidly. For example the other well known bound states containing two heavy "quarks" (actually a quark and anti-quark so the headline is technically correct, which of course is the best form of correct) have lifetimes of 7.2e-21s (J/Psi) and 1.2e-20s (upsilon) although a better comparable lifetime would be 2e-13s which is the Lambda_c which contains a single c quark and so, unlike the mesons, has to decay through weak interactions rather than strong interactions which takes longer. With two c-quarks the lifetime should be shorted that the lambda_c but probably not by a lot.
Ultimately, while very worthwhile, this result is unexciting because it is just baryon spectroscopy. In terms perhaps more accessible to Slashdot it would be like Apple releasing the iPhone (n+1) or Samsung releasing a new Galaxy Note (which is perhaps a better analogy because the like the Note the particle disappears with a sudden release of energy after a short, but random, period;-). What really makes headlines is the discovery of a new fundamental particle and so far we have had no luck there. This year's data is probably the last which will give a huge increase in reach for new physics. After this year the reach will still improve each year but in increasingly smaller steps since the fractional increase in luminosity becomes less and less as the total size of the dataset grows.
That's where your time argument comes in. You can probably remember living in a house without high speed internet but you almost certainly never lived in a house without electricity so a house without electricity seems far more primitive. It would also be far harder to live in since everyone now has electricity so oil lamps are a lot harder to find.
Give it a few decades though and the internet will almost certainly get there too. It is getting harder to get and pay bills by post, travel agents have almost disappeared because most people book online, speciality shops are disappearing due to amazon et al, people are rapidly ditching cable TV for Netflix etc.
It's a terrible thing to do. The reason school kids don't think ahead is that they never need to: there are close to zero consequences for not thinking ahead throughout school. We had a school in Alberta fire a physics teacher for giving zeros when students did not hand in assignments even after cajoling and extensions because it was school policy never to give zeros. So there is no need to plan your time to get homework done because there are no consequences when you don't.
Requiring students to present their plans does nothing if you have spent the previous decade showing them that forward thinking is irrelevant. On top of that, it is grossly unfair because it is no business of the school what their students will choose, or not choose, to do with their qualifications. Universities do not revoke the degrees of graduates who commit crimes because, even if they chose to misuse it, they still have the education.
It's funny how when the bully's get bullied back, they suddenly don't like it.
This isn't bullying it is blackmail which in many countries is an actual crime. Had CNN just revealed his name as part of a news story you could classify that as bullying (mess with us and suffer the consequences). Where they crossed the line, and arguably committed a crime, is when they threatened to do this unless he continues to do what they want.
It's still very much a convenience. "I want it" does not make it a necessity.
...and as I pointed out the exact same thing can be said of every other utility. You can heat and cook on a coal or wood fire - in fact, my grandparents used to have a cottage up in the Yorkshire Dales which had a Victorian fireplace with oven and hob built-in. Lighting can be provided by oil lamps and water you can fetch from a nearby river and boil or purchase bottled water in the store etc.
The same is true of the internet: you can order things online and have them delivered, book your holiday, fill in tax returns and other government forms etc. All of these you can do without internet access but life is so much more convenient with it....just like every other utility. That's why they are called "utilities" and not "luxuries" nor "essentials": they make everyday life so much easier that they are somewhere between 'luxury' and 'essential'.
The fact that the Internet is a recent phenomenon does nothing to alter this - electricity had a similarly rapid roll out slowed slightly by the need to actually build the distribution infrastructure and two World Wars.
having an internet connection is not a right. its a luxury good that you choose to buy or not.
No, it is a utility just like gas, water and electricity. In theory, you can survive without all of these but you would be camping in your house and while an internet connection might be regarded as a luxury while camping it isn't really a luxury anymore for everyday life. In addition, the cost of duplicating the infrastructure to each house means that at a local level there is no real competition which is how capitalism keeps companies focused on providing the best service. Hence the utility market has to be heavily regulated otherwise companies can abuse their monopolistic power by putting unreasonable terms into their contracts leaving consumers with a choice between accepting them or house-camping.
Even if you did manage to get someone relatively free of bias what is especially troubling is the challenge based on their "ability to comprehend": that right there is going to limit education to what the thickest bureaucrat judging the complaint could cope with when s/he was a schoolkid.
Public education... having public input?! wow what a novel concept!
Input is one thing, being able to challenge material in the curriculum when you may not know the material yourself is a different thing. Education is like health care or indeed any other profession: you want to be able to give input on the best course of action to a professional who can weigh that input along with what they know to devise the best course of action.
If your doctor's course of treatment for you could be challenged by random members of the public and judged by a random bureaucrat who likely has little to know medical knowledge you would get terrible health case. The same is true for education.
No, what the data in the article claim is that paracetamol is effective for about 10% of migraines. However, it includes no data about the timing of the medication. For me, it only works when taken right at the start of the attack and then it works really well. If taken when a migraine is in full swing it does practically nothing but ibuprofen works - but that is just personal anecdote which is no substitute for real data.
Actually paracetamol (acetaminophen for Americans) is effective against migraines but only in about 10% of people. The rule I was always told was that then you feel a migraine coming on - aura start etc. - you take paracetamol but if a migraine has already started ibuprofen is better. This seems to work most of the time for me.
However, in both cases these are mild pain relievers and while they work for my migraines which are not particularly severe for more severe cases, like those my dad used to sometimes have, more powerful medications are required. In the UK you can also get paracetamol with added codeine tablets over the counter (in limited numbers and dosages since codeine is mildly addictive) and I find this often works particularly well taken at the start of a migraine.
It's probably not the same company. Either the original company goes bust or it's parent company shuts it down and then the brand name is sold off to someone else who makes cheap knockoffs for a fraction of the price. This gives them a window to sell their cheap knockoff for far more than it is worth but for far less than the original brand cost before everyone realizes what has happened and stops buying the product. Technically it's not a knockoff because they actually own the soon-to-be-worthless brand but in all the ways that really matter to us consumers, it is a cheap knockoff.
Let's just hope they are using different approach to the one which Starbucks et al seems to be using. (It's probably a good idea to finish your coffee before clicking!)
Clearly the solution is to stop policing speech and let every commercial web service turn into a swirling maelstrom of racial slurs.
No, the solution is to make it easy for people to choose not to listen. In real life when some hate filled bigot is rambling on most of us are usually blissfully unaware of it since we choose not to go to whatever event s/he is speaking at.
What these social media sites need is an "ignore" button that essentially blocks that person from any contact with the user who chooses to ignore them. This would have to be coupled with some mechanism to prevent users from creating multiple accounts as a means to get around the ignore. However a scheme like this lets everyone have their freedoms: the bigots have their freedom of speech to say what they want and the rest of us have our freedom to not hear it just like we do in real life.
There is one big difference compared to the US though in that the Attorney-General of Canada was arguing AGAINST the court granting this injunction for all the reasons about territorial jurisdiction being discussed here (see the last paragraph of the article). It's still a bad decision but at least our government understands and, since they write the laws this might get fixed.
"Establishment of a religion" means making a religion the official state religion and giving it some say in the running of the country e.g. England has the "Lords Spiritual" who are a subset of the Church of England bishops. Establishing a religion is completely independent of whether members of a particular religion may, or may not, enter a country as the UK shows: there is no restriction of religion for those entering despite the fact that there is an establish religion.
The bit I think you want is the next phrase "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" so how about I just leave that there for you?;-)
Slashdot Mirror
He learned Chinese and did after all, bring the worlds people together ... he leads an incredibly productive life...
Chinese is literally the least remarkable language to learn given that over 2 billion people have already done this. As for bringing people together, I think Facebook has done the exact opposite. It lets people post crap about their life online so they can avoid actually having any meaningful conversations with others.
Numerous studies have shown that Facebook use leads to a decline in mental health. In many ways, it is the McDonalds of the internet: wildly popular but bad for society's health. I'd hardly define creating something like that "productive" despite it being extremely financially rewarding.
Thinks they support this for YOUR benefit.
Who cares that they only support this for their own benefit? In this case, their and our interests align extremely well: we want to be able to choose from whom to purchase internet services and they want us to have the freedom to choose because their services are currently a consumer favourite. Give it a few years and their opinion may change if they suddenly find they are competing with a new startup but the longer net neutrality lasts the better established and harder to change it becomes.
Even the current moviehouse 3D technology isn't all that great if you ask me.
Also like cinema 3D the Occulus Rift does not work well with glasses (it's possible but a major pain to put it on and take it off). That's about 42% of men and over half of women so you have almost halved your potential market before you even start.
Yes, but with their new name they will have to change their motto: "Guardians of the High Frontier" seems so sensible and, well, down to earth. Might I suggest: "To infinity and beyond!"?
Uhh no. Electrons carry charge intrinsically. Moving through a conductive material is not necessary...
Oh dear. Electricity is the motion of charge through a conductor. Hence the reason an electron carries the charge in a conductor is because (a) it has a charge and (b) it can move through materials. The video you linked is nothing more than a description of how electric and magnetic fields are linked via a Lorentz boost which has almost nothing to do with what we are talking about but note how it did say that the electrons moved to carry the current, no neutrinos in sight!
in materials baryons have enormously higher masses and are subject to the strong nuclear force
this is not why, or at least not the immediate issue. We need to figure out a way to keep these kind of particles around long enough...
No actually we don't because nature handily provides us with another well known baryon, the proton. The reason that it is the electron, and not the proton, which is the charge carrier is because "in materials baryons have enormously higher masses and are subject to the strong nuclear force". This means that their bound state wavefunctions do not overlap with adjacent nuclei and so they cannot move like the electrons can. The reason you can't find much discussion about this on Google is because no physicist needs to think about it. We already know protons are not charge carriers and swapping out protons for a more exotic form of charged baryon in a material is still not going to make them carry the charge because with an even larger mass they will be even less mobile than the already non-mobile protons.
Inside protons and neutrons you could say yes, they're free
It's nowhere near as simple as that. Quarks are subject to asymptotic freedom which means that the higher the energy the less bound they become. However, the size scale you look at is directly related to the energy: the smaller the scale you look at a proton the higher the energy you need. So if you just look at a little below the size of the proton the quarks will still be relatively strongly bound but, as you ramp up the energy, the quarks will become more free...but something stranger also happens.
As the energy ramps up the apparent consistency of the proton changes. The reason for this is that at smaller scales/higher energies there is enough energy that virtual quark pairs and gluons carry some of the energy and momentum of the proton - these are called sea quarks, as opposed to the valence quarks which we typically quote. The result is that by the time you get to LHC energies the quarks are generally only a small part of the proton and most of the proton is just gluons. So the typical model we use for LHC collisions is colliding two bags of gluons - no quarks involved unless the gluon-production channel for whatever you are looking for is heavily suppressed.
However electricity is actual a function of electrons (a leptron called electron neutrino) and they carry a negative charge
No, the electron neutrino is neutral, just like every neutrino. It's the electron which carries the charge. The reason electrons carry charge is because they can move through a conductive material. Apart from being exceedingly unstable this particle will only ever carry electric charge in a plasma because in materials baryons have enormously higher masses and are subject to the strong nuclear force.
The far higher mass and the strong nuclear charge means that they bind together to form nuclei which are so heavy that their bound states are very small (1e-14m) compared to the far lighter electrons which have bound states on the order of 1e-10m. This larger bound state for electrons means that in the right conditions it can overlap with the electron states of other atoms which allows the electrons to move through the material. The nuclear bound states never overlap unless you heat the material to an exceedingly high temperature so they have enough energy to get close enough to each other. This is why fusion reactors require such insanely high temperatures to work.
If this is real, and stable
Real, yes, stable absolutely not! Heavy quarks in bound states decay very rapidly. For example the other well known bound states containing two heavy "quarks" (actually a quark and anti-quark so the headline is technically correct, which of course is the best form of correct) have lifetimes of 7.2e-21s (J/Psi) and 1.2e-20s (upsilon) although a better comparable lifetime would be 2e-13s which is the Lambda_c which contains a single c quark and so, unlike the mesons, has to decay through weak interactions rather than strong interactions which takes longer. With two c-quarks the lifetime should be shorted that the lambda_c but probably not by a lot.
;-). What really makes headlines is the discovery of a new fundamental particle and so far we have had no luck there. This year's data is probably the last which will give a huge increase in reach for new physics. After this year the reach will still improve each year but in increasingly smaller steps since the fractional increase in luminosity becomes less and less as the total size of the dataset grows.
Ultimately, while very worthwhile, this result is unexciting because it is just baryon spectroscopy. In terms perhaps more accessible to Slashdot it would be like Apple releasing the iPhone (n+1) or Samsung releasing a new Galaxy Note (which is perhaps a better analogy because the like the Note the particle disappears with a sudden release of energy after a short, but random, period
That's where your time argument comes in. You can probably remember living in a house without high speed internet but you almost certainly never lived in a house without electricity so a house without electricity seems far more primitive. It would also be far harder to live in since everyone now has electricity so oil lamps are a lot harder to find.
Give it a few decades though and the internet will almost certainly get there too. It is getting harder to get and pay bills by post, travel agents have almost disappeared because most people book online, speciality shops are disappearing due to amazon et al, people are rapidly ditching cable TV for Netflix etc.
This is really an excellent thing to do.
It's a terrible thing to do. The reason school kids don't think ahead is that they never need to: there are close to zero consequences for not thinking ahead throughout school. We had a school in Alberta fire a physics teacher for giving zeros when students did not hand in assignments even after cajoling and extensions because it was school policy never to give zeros. So there is no need to plan your time to get homework done because there are no consequences when you don't.
Requiring students to present their plans does nothing if you have spent the previous decade showing them that forward thinking is irrelevant. On top of that, it is grossly unfair because it is no business of the school what their students will choose, or not choose, to do with their qualifications. Universities do not revoke the degrees of graduates who commit crimes because, even if they chose to misuse it, they still have the education.
It's funny how when the bully's get bullied back, they suddenly don't like it.
This isn't bullying it is blackmail which in many countries is an actual crime. Had CNN just revealed his name as part of a news story you could classify that as bullying (mess with us and suffer the consequences). Where they crossed the line, and arguably committed a crime, is when they threatened to do this unless he continues to do what they want.
It's still very much a convenience. "I want it" does not make it a necessity.
The same is true of the internet: you can order things online and have them delivered, book your holiday, fill in tax returns and other government forms etc. All of these you can do without internet access but life is so much more convenient with it....just like every other utility. That's why they are called "utilities" and not "luxuries" nor "essentials": they make everyday life so much easier that they are somewhere between 'luxury' and 'essential'.
The fact that the Internet is a recent phenomenon does nothing to alter this - electricity had a similarly rapid roll out slowed slightly by the need to actually build the distribution infrastructure and two World Wars.
having an internet connection is not a right. its a luxury good that you choose to buy or not.
No, it is a utility just like gas, water and electricity. In theory, you can survive without all of these but you would be camping in your house and while an internet connection might be regarded as a luxury while camping it isn't really a luxury anymore for everyday life. In addition, the cost of duplicating the infrastructure to each house means that at a local level there is no real competition which is how capitalism keeps companies focused on providing the best service. Hence the utility market has to be heavily regulated otherwise companies can abuse their monopolistic power by putting unreasonable terms into their contracts leaving consumers with a choice between accepting them or house-camping.
Even if you did manage to get someone relatively free of bias what is especially troubling is the challenge based on their "ability to comprehend": that right there is going to limit education to what the thickest bureaucrat judging the complaint could cope with when s/he was a schoolkid.
There are, however, lots of wrong ones and is what is going to cause some serious problems with a system like this.
Public education... having public input?! wow what a novel concept!
Input is one thing, being able to challenge material in the curriculum when you may not know the material yourself is a different thing. Education is like health care or indeed any other profession: you want to be able to give input on the best course of action to a professional who can weigh that input along with what they know to devise the best course of action.
If your doctor's course of treatment for you could be challenged by random members of the public and judged by a random bureaucrat who likely has little to know medical knowledge you would get terrible health case. The same is true for education.
No, what the data in the article claim is that paracetamol is effective for about 10% of migraines. However, it includes no data about the timing of the medication. For me, it only works when taken right at the start of the attack and then it works really well. If taken when a migraine is in full swing it does practically nothing but ibuprofen works - but that is just personal anecdote which is no substitute for real data.
Except that for some people caffeine actually triggers migraines.
Actually paracetamol (acetaminophen for Americans) is effective against migraines but only in about 10% of people. The rule I was always told was that then you feel a migraine coming on - aura start etc. - you take paracetamol but if a migraine has already started ibuprofen is better. This seems to work most of the time for me.
However, in both cases these are mild pain relievers and while they work for my migraines which are not particularly severe for more severe cases, like those my dad used to sometimes have, more powerful medications are required. In the UK you can also get paracetamol with added codeine tablets over the counter (in limited numbers and dosages since codeine is mildly addictive) and I find this often works particularly well taken at the start of a migraine.
How would the same company make a knockoff???
It's probably not the same company. Either the original company goes bust or it's parent company shuts it down and then the brand name is sold off to someone else who makes cheap knockoffs for a fraction of the price. This gives them a window to sell their cheap knockoff for far more than it is worth but for far less than the original brand cost before everyone realizes what has happened and stops buying the product. Technically it's not a knockoff because they actually own the soon-to-be-worthless brand but in all the ways that really matter to us consumers, it is a cheap knockoff.
Let's just hope they are using different approach to the one which Starbucks et al seems to be using. (It's probably a good idea to finish your coffee before clicking!)
Clearly the solution is to stop policing speech and let every commercial web service turn into a swirling maelstrom of racial slurs.
No, the solution is to make it easy for people to choose not to listen. In real life when some hate filled bigot is rambling on most of us are usually blissfully unaware of it since we choose not to go to whatever event s/he is speaking at.
What these social media sites need is an "ignore" button that essentially blocks that person from any contact with the user who chooses to ignore them. This would have to be coupled with some mechanism to prevent users from creating multiple accounts as a means to get around the ignore. However a scheme like this lets everyone have their freedoms: the bigots have their freedom of speech to say what they want and the rest of us have our freedom to not hear it just like we do in real life.
There is one big difference compared to the US though in that the Attorney-General of Canada was arguing AGAINST the court granting this injunction for all the reasons about territorial jurisdiction being discussed here (see the last paragraph of the article). It's still a bad decision but at least our government understands and, since they write the laws this might get fixed.
However, researchers are still trying to overcome the slight technical difficulty of the patient being vaporized in the process.
That's why it will make an excellent airport security detector. It's guaranteed not to let any bomb or potential terrorist get past it.
"Establishment of a religion" means making a religion the official state religion and giving it some say in the running of the country e.g. England has the "Lords Spiritual" who are a subset of the Church of England bishops. Establishing a religion is completely independent of whether members of a particular religion may, or may not, enter a country as the UK shows: there is no restriction of religion for those entering despite the fact that there is an establish religion.
;-)
The bit I think you want is the next phrase "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" so how about I just leave that there for you?