Very romantic view of the reality. He did not stood against anyone, he picked a lot of information, much more than necessary and leaked that information after escaping. That's not my definition of standing against tyranny. And if tyranny there is, you should have at home a lot of people to protect him against it in a country like the USA.
And just to make sure you understand the point. Snowden did make his point without leaking ALL the information he got. That's the proof he took much more than necessary to make his point. So far, only a very thin part of what he has taken has been leaked.
At least we know Russia is playing the Snowden card on the public relations side. Don't you remember his implication in the recent TV program during elections in Russia?
Beside the name calling thing, it is not true he needs to leak that much information to make his point. He is going far beyond his point with the GB of information he has leaked than just proving the NSA has violated the Constitution.
For the freedom, it seems obvious to me Snowden has given up on his freedom since he is locked in Russia for an undetermined time in exchange of his security. Talking coward here...
Snowden didn't need to leak that much information to make his point. That is where the leak become much less morally right.
Don't be naive, knowing the government will be after him after such a leak, he probably got much more than needed to have something to trade in exchange of his own security. And it seems as well Snowden is prefering safety over freedom.
Just because the revealing of an illegal practice modifies the behavior of others does not make that illegal practice legitimate.
Of course not, however it means Snowden has reveal much more than necessary to make his point and has grabbed an insane quantity of data to make it leaking this data to external sources.
This being said, I am not convince you can link the change in encryption software from Al-Qaida and the likes to Snowden's stunt. In the meantime there were also cryptography courses that were made available through MOOC offerings and one thing these courses emphasize on is: don't do your own crypto software use commercial or open source crypto software which will happen to be much more secure than anything you can develop unless you are an expert within a team of experts with considerable means. It is perfectly plausible they switched to open source crypto after someone of them enrolled into such a course instead of listening at Snowden's leaked stuff.
Exactly, that's why the Standard Model is so resilient and unsatisfactory at the same time. A collection of facts glued together by bits of knowledge and mathematical modeling.
Your description does not correspond to the facts. Initially, they were seeking for the three kidnapped young men to save them. It is only 20 days later the bodies were found left by the killers in an open field. In the operation to find the kidnappers, many weapons caches were found and a weapon manufacture lab was uncovered in the operation and many arrests are related to these. The kidnappers were identified within 24 hours and it is partly because they were they left the bodies in an open field instead of negociating the return to their families. The Hamas is linked to the kidnappers even if some people are saying they are members of a more radical faction. The reality is the Hamas is supporting this more radical faction as well.
No, they are these hippies that prevented Shell to sink an old oil reservoir deep in the North Sea to take rid of it an minimize pollution. They claimed the reservoir contained toxic heavy metal, they chained themselves to the reservoir to prevent Shell to sink it and eventually the public opinion was on their side and Shell was mandate to dissassemble the reservoir on land to find out there was no toxic heavy metal in it and the operation proven to be way more polluting on land than if they had sunken the reservoir at 4 000 meters deep in sea as intent originally.
These guys are getting too much attention for what they worth.
In fact, that's not nice at all. If the Bitcoin is to be a currency, it should not be viewed as a risky investment or something like that. Otherwise, the chances are null it will become a real player in the currencies market. On another hand, if you are to provide some kind of guarantees to eventual users, you also have to cover the charges for that service.
And at the end, why should someone use bitcoins if they are equivalent to any other trading system? Given the charges to offer some legal guarantees, given the charges to exchange your money into this currency, given the volatility of this currency, why should someone decide to use it in first place instead of any other payment options out there?
Bitcoin is doomed to fail or to become equivalent to any other credit card, direct payment, currency exchange business.
Point is the 8 months payback delay is calculated taking for granted there is a high-performance electricity storage unit. This unit cost and even existence has not been taken into account in the payback delay. For now, there is no high-performance storage units anywhere in the world, hence its cost should be then infinite since the technology to build them is not there yet.
Otherwise, the study should take into account the cost of integration with the existing grid and the variation costs of other energy suppliers when the wind farm is supplying the grid. This cost is higher than you may think. This study is bullshit anyway.
Well, forget WUWT and you will see there is not much calculations neither in the original claim and in fact, there is a big warning sign in the text, something the cost has not been taken into account in the evaluation but mandatory for their hypothesis to hold, here it is:
"Wind turbines are frequently touted as the answer to sustainable electricity production especially if coupled to high-capacity storage for times when the wind speed is either side of their working range."
So, they presume the high-capacity storage exists and it has zero cost. Seems to me a bit optimistic.
What's the point? You fear to be infected? Read the argumentation for what it is and see if it make sense. If not, argument yourself on what you believe doesn't make sense. It is not because it has been published on such a site it is automatically wrong and evil. You offer no argumentation than saying it is coming from the enemy. You are acting exactly like a denier yourself.
I guess this shouldn't have made its way to/., this is an internal news publication and they don't claim having made any breaktrough technological advance by doing this neither. See this as an internal publication to publicize what is done at Sheffield University to undergraduate students.
No, because the OP's question was rather than why all these caution around the identity of this boson if there is only one Higgs. However, he didn't suspect the question doesn't make sense neither if this Higgs boson is another Higgs boson instead of the first Higgs boson, at the end it is still a Higgs boson anyway. The reason the physicists were so cautious about the identity of the particle is not because it could be another Higgs boson, it is because it could be another particle predicted by another theory which would instead of confirming the Standard Model rather than debunked it.
In the energy range of the LHC the Higgs boson is not the only new particle that could have been discovered. You cannot automatically tag the particle a Higgs boson unless you observe and measure some of its characteristics, which is exactly what is done here, to prove it is actually a Higgs boson and not another exotic particle from another exotic theory. The Standard Model is far to be the only existing one and the LHC is also seeking for physics beyond the Standard Model. The few characteristics originally observed from the early announcement were insufficient to make certain it was a Higgs boson, that's why it was originally called a Higgs-like particle.
Slashdot Mirror
Very romantic view of the reality. He did not stood against anyone, he picked a lot of information, much more than necessary and leaked that information after escaping. That's not my definition of standing against tyranny. And if tyranny there is, you should have at home a lot of people to protect him against it in a country like the USA.
That's not the point. He is locked in Russia, not just living in Russia. Very different my friend.
And just to make sure you understand the point. Snowden did make his point without leaking ALL the information he got. That's the proof he took much more than necessary to make his point. So far, only a very thin part of what he has taken has been leaked.
At least we know Russia is playing the Snowden card on the public relations side. Don't you remember his implication in the recent TV program during elections in Russia?
Beside the name calling thing, it is not true he needs to leak that much information to make his point. He is going far beyond his point with the GB of information he has leaked than just proving the NSA has violated the Constitution.
For the freedom, it seems obvious to me Snowden has given up on his freedom since he is locked in Russia for an undetermined time in exchange of his security. Talking coward here...
Snowden didn't need to leak that much information to make his point. That is where the leak become much less morally right.
Don't be naive, knowing the government will be after him after such a leak, he probably got much more than needed to have something to trade in exchange of his own security. And it seems as well Snowden is prefering safety over freedom.
Just because the revealing of an illegal practice modifies the behavior of others does not make that illegal practice legitimate.
Of course not, however it means Snowden has reveal much more than necessary to make his point and has grabbed an insane quantity of data to make it leaking this data to external sources.
This being said, I am not convince you can link the change in encryption software from Al-Qaida and the likes to Snowden's stunt. In the meantime there were also cryptography courses that were made available through MOOC offerings and one thing these courses emphasize on is: don't do your own crypto software use commercial or open source crypto software which will happen to be much more secure than anything you can develop unless you are an expert within a team of experts with considerable means. It is perfectly plausible they switched to open source crypto after someone of them enrolled into such a course instead of listening at Snowden's leaked stuff.
Circumstancial proofs must be taken with caution.
Exactly, that's why the Standard Model is so resilient and unsatisfactory at the same time. A collection of facts glued together by bits of knowledge and mathematical modeling.
Interesting given the guy never finished his Ph.D.
"...leaving many graduates temporarily unable to complete the exams needed to practice law."
I guess that's what we call Artificial Intelligence.
Your description does not correspond to the facts. Initially, they were seeking for the three kidnapped young men to save them. It is only 20 days later the bodies were found left by the killers in an open field. In the operation to find the kidnappers, many weapons caches were found and a weapon manufacture lab was uncovered in the operation and many arrests are related to these. The kidnappers were identified within 24 hours and it is partly because they were they left the bodies in an open field instead of negociating the return to their families. The Hamas is linked to the kidnappers even if some people are saying they are members of a more radical faction. The reality is the Hamas is supporting this more radical faction as well.
"the people of Gaza feel that in the current climate, Hamas represents their interests better than any of the other options."
In return, GCC guys decided to call his OS "L*n*x" only with no asterisks. Actually Lnx.
Which may in turn trigger a suit from QNX guys who actually do not use any asterisks at all.
No, they are these hippies that prevented Shell to sink an old oil reservoir deep in the North Sea to take rid of it an minimize pollution. They claimed the reservoir contained toxic heavy metal, they chained themselves to the reservoir to prevent Shell to sink it and eventually the public opinion was on their side and Shell was mandate to dissassemble the reservoir on land to find out there was no toxic heavy metal in it and the operation proven to be way more polluting on land than if they had sunken the reservoir at 4 000 meters deep in sea as intent originally.
These guys are getting too much attention for what they worth.
Sigh!
Mod up the parent. Skilled people are a plus for America if they can stay.
In fact, that's not nice at all. If the Bitcoin is to be a currency, it should not be viewed as a risky investment or something like that. Otherwise, the chances are null it will become a real player in the currencies market. On another hand, if you are to provide some kind of guarantees to eventual users, you also have to cover the charges for that service.
And at the end, why should someone use bitcoins if they are equivalent to any other trading system? Given the charges to offer some legal guarantees, given the charges to exchange your money into this currency, given the volatility of this currency, why should someone decide to use it in first place instead of any other payment options out there?
Bitcoin is doomed to fail or to become equivalent to any other credit card, direct payment, currency exchange business.
Needless to say that's a lot of dicks long.
Point is the 8 months payback delay is calculated taking for granted there is a high-performance electricity storage unit. This unit cost and even existence has not been taken into account in the payback delay. For now, there is no high-performance storage units anywhere in the world, hence its cost should be then infinite since the technology to build them is not there yet.
Otherwise, the study should take into account the cost of integration with the existing grid and the variation costs of other energy suppliers when the wind farm is supplying the grid. This cost is higher than you may think. This study is bullshit anyway.
Well, forget WUWT and you will see there is not much calculations neither in the original claim and in fact, there is a big warning sign in the text, something the cost has not been taken into account in the evaluation but mandatory for their hypothesis to hold, here it is:
"Wind turbines are frequently touted as the answer to sustainable electricity production especially if coupled to high-capacity storage for times when the wind speed is either side of their working range."
So, they presume the high-capacity storage exists and it has zero cost. Seems to me a bit optimistic.
What's the point? You fear to be infected? Read the argumentation for what it is and see if it make sense. If not, argument yourself on what you believe doesn't make sense. It is not because it has been published on such a site it is automatically wrong and evil. You offer no argumentation than saying it is coming from the enemy. You are acting exactly like a denier yourself.
I guess this shouldn't have made its way to /., this is an internal news publication and they don't claim having made any breaktrough technological advance by doing this neither. See this as an internal publication to publicize what is done at Sheffield University to undergraduate students.
That's not what the article says. Perhaps you should read it more carefully.
No, because the OP's question was rather than why all these caution around the identity of this boson if there is only one Higgs. However, he didn't suspect the question doesn't make sense neither if this Higgs boson is another Higgs boson instead of the first Higgs boson, at the end it is still a Higgs boson anyway. The reason the physicists were so cautious about the identity of the particle is not because it could be another Higgs boson, it is because it could be another particle predicted by another theory which would instead of confirming the Standard Model rather than debunked it.
In the energy range of the LHC the Higgs boson is not the only new particle that could have been discovered. You cannot automatically tag the particle a Higgs boson unless you observe and measure some of its characteristics, which is exactly what is done here, to prove it is actually a Higgs boson and not another exotic particle from another exotic theory. The Standard Model is far to be the only existing one and the LHC is also seeking for physics beyond the Standard Model. The few characteristics originally observed from the early announcement were insufficient to make certain it was a Higgs boson, that's why it was originally called a Higgs-like particle.