First of all, this is a theoretical paper, they do not detect anything.
Second, there's no "magic" in it. As they say in the article, the peak of the transmitted wavepacket appears before the peak of the incident wavepacket has reached the condensate.
At the beginning of the century (1914), Brillouin and Sommerfeld already showed that, when a plane EM wave with a sharp forward front propagating in vacuum is incident upon a transparent medium, its shape is changed and precursor waves form, with a velocity approaching c in vacuum, corresponding to the high-frequency components for which the (relative) permittivity goes to 1.
In excitable media (and I assume the same happens with atoms in a BEC) the effect is even more spectacular, because these fast components (or, as in this case, the leading edge of the pulse) can get amplified and then leave the medium before the "bulk" of the incoming pulse even enters it.
Moreover, before leaving the medium this "fast" pulse is split in two, and the reflected component can interfere destructively with the "lazy" pulse, wiping it out. Hence the "illusion". Needless to say, Einstein is still right:-)
[...] we have reset marketing preferences for some of our users. If you are one of those users, unless you decide to change these preferences, you may begin receiving marketing messages from Yahoo! about ways to enhance your Yahoo! experience, including special offers and new features.
Yahoo! is notifying users of these changes to marketing preferences via email. Your new marketing preferences will not take effect until 60 days after the date the email is sent to you so you have plenty of time to decide what you want to receive and what you don't. To change your preferences, go to the Marketing Preferences page.
Well, it doesn't look that outrageous. Still, there's no hint as to why they did it.
...would be lining the inside of the casing with fine wire mesh. This is enough to form a Faraday cage if the size of the mesh is equal to or less than the relevant wavelength.
The question that naturally arises is: In which direction does the correlation go? Do people turn to TV because of boredom and loneliness, or does TV viewing make people more susceptible to boredom and loneliness? We and most other researchers argue that the former is generally the case, but it is not a simple case of either/or.
They glossed over this in just one paragraph... although they declare they argue that the former is generally the case, the article insists heavily upon the second alternative; I do not find their reasoning very convincing. Even the experiments on "TV deprivation" are inconclusive: people needing a distraction from their daily toil are likely to be uncomfortable and maybe even violent when this is taken from them. In this sense, we are all addicted to entertainment, but not necessarily to a specific entertainment.
The second part, concerning video games and computers, seems to me even more questionable.
For instance, I fail to see the connection between "addiction" and the cases of "optically stimulated epileptic seizures". It is common knowledge that such seizures can be triggered by intermittent light (for instant when driving by a row of trees) but they have nothing to do with addiction.
And despite what most people think, law enforcement officials are WAY to busy to concern themselves with the details of your private life. They are only concerned for the information that will help them protect the public from criminals.
Yeah, sure ! Especially in the (ex-)communist countries. In Romania, before 1989, some guy was thrown in jail and eventually murdered based on the contents of his diary. As for corresponding with people abroad...
What I'm getting at is that in such a regime anyone can be treated as a criminal if the "proper autorities" decide it, and that "subversive statements" is not the only thing they're looking for. I bet every Chinese person receiving enough e-mail from the USA is under scrutiny by the "law enforcement officials".
Slashdot Mirror
Second, there's no "magic" in it. As they say in the article, the peak of the transmitted wavepacket appears before the peak of the incident wavepacket has reached the condensate.
At the beginning of the century (1914), Brillouin and Sommerfeld already showed that, when a plane EM wave with a sharp forward front propagating in vacuum is incident upon a transparent medium, its shape is changed and precursor waves form, with a velocity approaching c in vacuum, corresponding to the high-frequency components for which the (relative) permittivity goes to 1.
In excitable media (and I assume the same happens with atoms in a BEC) the effect is even more spectacular, because these fast components (or, as in this case, the leading edge of the pulse) can get amplified and then leave the medium before the "bulk" of the incoming pulse even enters it.
Moreover, before leaving the medium this "fast" pulse is split in two, and the reflected component can interfere destructively with the "lazy" pulse, wiping it out. Hence the "illusion". Needless to say, Einstein is still right :-)
It's Thursday, already ?!
is here, with a little more information on Lorentz and CPT violation.
Here is the Eden project page, lest we /. the wrong site...
Which part of But the Bush administration has instead announced policy changes likely to push them up by 30 percent by 2010 did you miss ?
Options -> Member Directory
[...] we have reset marketing preferences for some of our users. If you are one of those users, unless you decide to change these preferences, you may begin receiving marketing messages from Yahoo! about ways to enhance your Yahoo! experience, including special offers and new features.
Yahoo! is notifying users of these changes to marketing preferences via email. Your new marketing preferences will not take effect until 60 days after the date the email is sent to you so you have plenty of time to decide what you want to receive and what you don't. To change your preferences, go to the Marketing Preferences page.
Well, it doesn't look that outrageous. Still, there's no hint as to why they did it.
the BSD !
They don't give much historical information, apparently. But I'm not very good at German...
If the traditional ID cards already carry name, photo and birth date, what's the problem with putting them on a "smart" card ?
As for adding thumbprints, this would make identity theft more difficult, and not easier.
He thought the DOJ was worthless, so he wrote the comment to dev/null/ ...
I see no reason why every computer should comply with their "standards" just in order to accomodate some business or the other...
If they cannot adapt to the medium then tough luck ! It's not theirs to change in the first place.
I never thought I'd see "Linux" and "streamline" in the same sentence.
...would be lining the inside of the casing with fine wire mesh. This is enough to form a Faraday cage if the size of the mesh is equal to or less than the relevant wavelength.
They glossed over this in just one paragraph... although they declare they argue that the former is generally the case, the article insists heavily upon the second alternative; I do not find their reasoning very convincing. Even the experiments on "TV deprivation" are inconclusive: people needing a distraction from their daily toil are likely to be uncomfortable and maybe even violent when this is taken from them. In this sense, we are all addicted to entertainment, but not necessarily to a specific entertainment.
The second part, concerning video games and computers, seems to me even more questionable. For instance, I fail to see the connection between "addiction" and the cases of "optically stimulated epileptic seizures". It is common knowledge that such seizures can be triggered by intermittent light (for instant when driving by a row of trees) but they have nothing to do with addiction.
Can't you smell your way to the pub, like everybody else ?!
We are thrillseekers, but we're not paranoid ! This must be some Go player conspiracy !
Yeah, sure ! Especially in the (ex-)communist countries. In Romania, before 1989, some guy was thrown in jail and eventually murdered based on the contents of his diary. As for corresponding with people abroad...
What I'm getting at is that in such a regime anyone can be treated as a criminal if the "proper autorities" decide it, and that "subversive statements" is not the only thing they're looking for. I bet every Chinese person receiving enough e-mail from the USA is under scrutiny by the "law enforcement officials".