Here's a bigger list. This just shows how some of these fundamental particles can combine to make other subatomic particles. I'm still looking for a full, complete list. When you go to this site that the slashdot article mentions, and you click on "Mesons", it'll say "there are about 140 types of mesons". Dangit! I want a list of those!...Baryons too =)
Dangit, I hate it when you agree with somebody on slashdot. It kills the discussion. I mean..there's nothing left to argue over. Then what's the point? Hmm...wait a minute...
Heh, I hate nit picking articles...but I have to. =)
The tone of that posters article expressed a conclusive viewpoint. The poster claimed that the vast majority accepted global warming is signifcantly caused by human impact. This thought helped express the poster's main idea that somehow the global warming debate has has pretty much been decided and all conclusions have been reached...and man is almost completely at fault.
That's what bugged me...conclusions haven't been reached. The IPCC scientists know this too...they know full well the uncertainty and problems in their climate models, and recommend better models for future testing. There are very few scientists who believe that conclusions have been reached.
On the other hand, the tone of your post was much more cautious and moderate (and rightly so). You were right when the vast majority of scientists support the theory that humans are contrubting to global warming. Of course nearly everyone supports that position. But to what degree are humans to blame? Nobody is sure...again no conclusions have been reached.
Who's right in the global warming mess? We can't tell. The IPCC reports are a big step in the right direction (despite its integrity problems due to both Volume's Summary for Policy Makers making conclusions the report didn't reach). Personally, I'm a watchful fence-sitter on the global warming debate. I just didn't enjoy the opinion of this poster, who placed current research aside and instead expressed the idea that scientists have virtually settled this issue.
LOL! Your post had to be one of the best collections of terrible analogies, misleading facts, and horrible overgeneralizations that I've ever heard!
So is Relativity, or Darwinian evolution. This does not help your argument, you imbecile.
His point did a nice job of helping his argument. He mentioned that human caused global warming is far from being proven. Therefore, we shouldn't jump on the stop-global-warming-bandwagon blindly. Instead, we should instead give it careful study, and weigh out future consequences of our actions.
As does almost any area of study in science, from cold fusion to ESP. But the great majority of evidence is behind it.
What the hell? Where did you get this "great majority of evidence" supporting human caused global warming? The Sierra Club of San Fransisco? This issue is FAR from reaching any conclusions, as this site explains quite well.
An analogy: you are trapped in a bank vault with ten other people...the vault is airtight...blah blah blah...so you light up a great big cigar.
I'll let that analogy speak for itself.
the vast majority of the world's scientists accept that global warming is a serious problem and to a significant extent caused by human activity
Have you ever spent any time reading scientific journals on global warming? Or do you get your information from quick, eight paragraph articles from the New York Times?
Your post shows that you have a good understanding of political debates, but a terrible understanding of the current state of science. One good way to fix this problem is by impartially and properly researching complicated issues like this in the future. Then you can back up your ideas without sounding like a complete idiot.
So if you've been thinking that you can't find a prime without multiple computers that are always on, this just goes to show you obviously can.
Ya! Way to rub it in their faces! I mean, what kind of idiots didn't already understand that you can find prime numbers on multiple computers...especially computers that are on!
I not a neutrino guru myself, but I think I have enough information for you.
Neutrinos and anti-neutrinos don't annaliate each other simply because they have an extremely small cross section for interactions with other matter. They are incredibly small, and have next to zero mass. This means that a neutrino would roughly have to travel an average 10^18 meters before it interactes with particles. Because of this, it would then seem unlikely that a neutrino would interact with an anti-neutrino.
In fact, the way my physics teachers taught us was that billions of neutrinos are passing through your body every second. Virtually all of these neutrinos will also pass through Earth as well.
Now the reason this Japan detecter can detect neutrinos is that it has a tank of 3000 tons of water. It patiently waits until one of these zillions of neutrinos scatters an electron, and then it can be detected.
The importance of neutrinos disappearing is that it could help out other models of physics, such as Grand Unified Theries or another theory of neutrinos that involves WIMPs. Basically, these are physics models that are very deep and complicated...often not covered in detail in a physics bachelor courses. But they are exteremly important in that they help physically test our latest theories about the universe.
(Note for post nit-pickers...all the information I explained came from my Astrophysics text book. Some of it may be a bit different than what KamLand's site says.)
Oops, I forgot to mention that I already knew that mass doesn't equal weight. That's one of those important things in physics, kinda like temperature and heat not being the same thing. =)
But I never thought about the centrifuge example before. Thanks for the extra info
But it makes sense when you had 2 hours of sleep the night before. =)
I agree, its important to choose the proper words to accurately describe whats going on. What I meant to say, was that I thought they came up with weight using a 1 cm^3 of water, instead of having that describe mass. Try taking this 1cm^3 of water to a different planet, and it will weigh differently. Of course, you should never say you weigh a gram, since gram describes mass.
I'm sure I made some proper taboo's in that last paragraph as well. But the point is, most slashdotters are used to hearing a bunch of jargon that closely describes whats going on, and their head can figure the rest of it out.
Ya, I wasn't sure about the whole weight/mass bit. I understand fully that mass doesn't change, but I wasn't sure if the 1 cubic centimeter of water was where they measure to weight one gram (in that people say they weight 50 kilograms...heh...), or whether it was used in the more accurate way to define the a mass of one gram.
This is why I enjoy slashdot's science section, everything gets cleared up to perfection.
It was nearly impossible to design a system that wasn't arbitrary.
In meters, for example, mathmeticians had to use a definition that allowed others acrossed the world to also come up with an exact length. If these mathemeticians truly wanted a non-arbitrary system back then, they could have made a "master meter stick", whose length was not based on anything arbitrary. But such a system would never work, because then they would have had to ship copies of the master meter stick across the world. The ratio system was much more practical.
Mass and volume are arbitarary in 2 ways. They rely off our arbitary meter, as well as the arbitary earth's gravity. A definition I've heard is that 1 cubic centimeter of water at sea level weights 1 gram and has a volume of 1 mL. Try taking a cubic centimeter of water to a different world, and you'll get different measurements. Today, the official definition of a kilogram is the mass of an international prototype in the form of a platinum-iridium cylinder kept at Sevres in France. (By the way, you could also say that using water is also arbitrary, since we earthlings used a commonly found liquid. The sea level is also arbitrary, since it varies across different coasts, as well over time)
Temperature is also based off the arbitary earth's atmosphere. 0 degrees Celsius is the freezing point of water at 1 atm (the standard air pressure of earth). If you increase or decrease the pressure, you'll get different freezing points.
Anyways, my point is, that it was next to impossible to come up with a practical system without it being arbitrary in some way or another.
P.S. If anything in this article needs correction, please correct it. I'm probably wrong somewhere since everything I said was what I remember from years ago.
Heh, I enjoyed your post...your amputee example made me laugh.
Would you try to argue that Free Software [gnu.org] is non-political?
It all depends on your definition of politics. As one person explained, every action you do is political, and since open source is a movement, belief, phenomenon, or whatever, open source is definitely political. Is the concept of open source in the same political arena as the human rights, homosexuality, liberal vs. conservative, etc. Not really. So when I said "Some things should be political, open source is not one of them." What I really meant was "Some areas of our life should involve political forums, such as reading the newspaper, hearing election debates, watching TV, and so on. These forums generally cover divisive issues on morality, human rights, and partisan spectrums. But, the open source movement should not become one of these types of forums that discuss such divisive issues. Doing so would mean far fewer people would get involved in open source, and that would cause the open source movement to suffer."
Because that would have been a mouthful, I narrowed down the thought down to 12 words. =)
How can encouraging human rights [in open source] possibly be a bad thing?
Because this would always occur:
American: Alright sir, here's yo go, remember, you need to promote human rights to use this product. European: Right, we Europeans are very much in favor of human rights. American: No no, you have to use *our* definition of human rights...you know...the right definition. European: Wait, I thought we were using the European definition. Because, well, you Americans don't know the first thing about human rights...you still have executions. Our definition of human rights is correct. American: Hah, nice try, Mr.-Restricts-More-Forms-Of-Free-Speech...America is right.
Poltical, partisan, and moral viewpoints are best left to news organizations, forums, and the like. Finding open source products to meet your needs should never involve you having to think, "Now, if I use this open source filter to block certain internet sites from my 20 year old son...is that violation of human rights or not?"
P.S. I hope my addition to your quote was correct, I tried to appropriately clarify what was conveyed in the previous article.
You're right, politics are the last thing licenses should contain.
Open source has always been about bringing people together, regardless of their political viewpoints, in order to give others open, free, and high quality software.
The last thing open source needs is divisive political themes attached to products. "Use this only if you support homosexual marriages"..."Only members of the NRA are allowed to contribute to this product"..."This product can only be used to promote the views expressed by Amnesty International."
Some things should be political, open source is not one of them.
I often spend my Saturdays out in the wilderness, crouched up against a tree, reading a wonderful novel on my battery powered laptop using wordpad. Ahh yes, it is so practical...
Quotes like this guy's make me wish we could somehow mod down news articles. (-1, Lost Track of Reality).
Yes, the First Amendment applies in schools. I don't have the exact quotes, but there are at least 3 Supreme Court cases that covered this topic. The most famous is "Freedom of speech does not end at the schoolhouse gate."
However, its very tricky. Freedom of speech is only allowed at schools in certain cases. Taxpayers pay the government to educate students...and so any free speech that is disruptive to this educational system is bad and can legally be stopped. As another supreme court case put it, you can speak freely anywhere in a school where learning isn't taking place, such as a cafeteria or hallway.
I personally tested this a long time ago by writing a newspaper that criticized my high school. I was very careful not to make false accusations or name anybody in particular. I passed out hundreds of copies of this paper at lunchtime, and I never got in trouble. School officials constantly tried to find ways to suspend me, since I violated a school rule that stated I had to have permission from them first to pass out a newspaper, but they never had the legal ground to persue any action against me.
The First Amendment only applies to America. In fact, to be more specific, it only applies to public areas. The First Amendment does not apply on my property. And it doesn't apply on Chinese property either.
Besides, we're practically the only country that fights so vigorously for every form of free speech. The Europe Union has no problem banning hate speech it finds destructive, and other countries have their own free speech problems. I do agree with Amnesty is fighting for more free speech. But its absolutely wrong to call these actions illegal when American companies are providing solutions to allow other countries to enforce their own laws.
--
Old actors don't die, they just go to Old Navy
Re:The possibilites are endless.
on
Virtual Simerica
·
· Score: 2
You know, a giant army of sims barging into a home to repeatedly slap somebody in the face would be humorous enough for me.
--
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
The possibilites are endless.
on
Virtual Simerica
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I wonder if we can form vigilante or militia groups with our other buddies online, and raid other people's neighborhoods?
--
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others! - Kodos
Slashdot Mirror
This could threaten the whole concept of this "internet" fad forever! =)
http://members.aol.com/cclinker/subatom.htm
Unfortunately, its text based, so you don't get to see the symbols and pictures and what not...but hey, its a bigger list!
You suck!!!!
Heh heh heh.. =)
Sadly, I have actually wondered this before, and I have wanted a list.
I don't know whether to thank Slashdot for this list, or if this list shows I need to not be such a geek. =)
The tone of that posters article expressed a conclusive viewpoint. The poster claimed that the vast majority accepted global warming is signifcantly caused by human impact. This thought helped express the poster's main idea that somehow the global warming debate has has pretty much been decided and all conclusions have been reached...and man is almost completely at fault.
That's what bugged me...conclusions haven't been reached. The IPCC scientists know this too...they know full well the uncertainty and problems in their climate models, and recommend better models for future testing. There are very few scientists who believe that conclusions have been reached.
On the other hand, the tone of your post was much more cautious and moderate (and rightly so). You were right when the vast majority of scientists support the theory that humans are contrubting to global warming. Of course nearly everyone supports that position. But to what degree are humans to blame? Nobody is sure...again no conclusions have been reached.
Who's right in the global warming mess? We can't tell. The IPCC reports are a big step in the right direction (despite its integrity problems due to both Volume's Summary for Policy Makers making conclusions the report didn't reach). Personally, I'm a watchful fence-sitter on the global warming debate. I just didn't enjoy the opinion of this poster, who placed current research aside and instead expressed the idea that scientists have virtually settled this issue.
So is Relativity, or Darwinian evolution. This does not help your argument, you imbecile.
His point did a nice job of helping his argument. He mentioned that human caused global warming is far from being proven. Therefore, we shouldn't jump on the stop-global-warming-bandwagon blindly. Instead, we should instead give it careful study, and weigh out future consequences of our actions.
As does almost any area of study in science, from cold fusion to ESP. But the great majority of evidence is behind it.
What the hell? Where did you get this "great majority of evidence" supporting human caused global warming? The Sierra Club of San Fransisco? This issue is FAR from reaching any conclusions, as this site explains quite well.
An analogy: you are trapped in a bank vault with ten other people...the vault is airtight...blah blah blah...so you light up a great big cigar.
I'll let that analogy speak for itself.
the vast majority of the world's scientists accept that global warming is a serious problem and to a significant extent caused by human activity
Have you ever spent any time reading scientific journals on global warming? Or do you get your information from quick, eight paragraph articles from the New York Times?
Your post shows that you have a good understanding of political debates, but a terrible understanding of the current state of science. One good way to fix this problem is by impartially and properly researching complicated issues like this in the future. Then you can back up your ideas without sounding like a complete idiot.
So if you've been thinking that you can't find a prime without multiple computers that are always on, this just goes to show you obviously can.
Ya! Way to rub it in their faces! I mean, what kind of idiots didn't already understand that you can find prime numbers on multiple computers...especially computers that are on!
That'll teach 'em...
Neutrinos and anti-neutrinos don't annaliate each other simply because they have an extremely small cross section for interactions with other matter. They are incredibly small, and have next to zero mass. This means that a neutrino would roughly have to travel an average 10^18 meters before it interactes with particles. Because of this, it would then seem unlikely that a neutrino would interact with an anti-neutrino.
In fact, the way my physics teachers taught us was that billions of neutrinos are passing through your body every second. Virtually all of these neutrinos will also pass through Earth as well.
Now the reason this Japan detecter can detect neutrinos is that it has a tank of 3000 tons of water. It patiently waits until one of these zillions of neutrinos scatters an electron, and then it can be detected.
The importance of neutrinos disappearing is that it could help out other models of physics, such as Grand Unified Theries or another theory of neutrinos that involves WIMPs. Basically, these are physics models that are very deep and complicated...often not covered in detail in a physics bachelor courses. But they are exteremly important in that they help physically test our latest theories about the universe.
(Note for post nit-pickers...all the information I explained came from my Astrophysics text book. Some of it may be a bit different than what KamLand's site says.)
But I never thought about the centrifuge example before. Thanks for the extra info
I agree, its important to choose the proper words to accurately describe whats going on. What I meant to say, was that I thought they came up with weight using a 1 cm^3 of water, instead of having that describe mass. Try taking this 1cm^3 of water to a different planet, and it will weigh differently. Of course, you should never say you weigh a gram, since gram describes mass.
I'm sure I made some proper taboo's in that last paragraph as well. But the point is, most slashdotters are used to hearing a bunch of jargon that closely describes whats going on, and their head can figure the rest of it out.
This is why I enjoy slashdot's science section, everything gets cleared up to perfection.
In meters, for example, mathmeticians had to use a definition that allowed others acrossed the world to also come up with an exact length. If these mathemeticians truly wanted a non-arbitrary system back then, they could have made a "master meter stick", whose length was not based on anything arbitrary. But such a system would never work, because then they would have had to ship copies of the master meter stick across the world. The ratio system was much more practical.
Mass and volume are arbitarary in 2 ways. They rely off our arbitary meter, as well as the arbitary earth's gravity. A definition I've heard is that 1 cubic centimeter of water at sea level weights 1 gram and has a volume of 1 mL. Try taking a cubic centimeter of water to a different world, and you'll get different measurements. Today, the official definition of a kilogram is the mass of an international prototype in the form of a platinum-iridium cylinder kept at Sevres in France. (By the way, you could also say that using water is also arbitrary, since we earthlings used a commonly found liquid. The sea level is also arbitrary, since it varies across different coasts, as well over time)
Temperature is also based off the arbitary earth's atmosphere. 0 degrees Celsius is the freezing point of water at 1 atm (the standard air pressure of earth). If you increase or decrease the pressure, you'll get different freezing points.
Anyways, my point is, that it was next to impossible to come up with a practical system without it being arbitrary in some way or another.
P.S. If anything in this article needs correction, please correct it. I'm probably wrong somewhere since everything I said was what I remember from years ago.
Would you try to argue that Free Software [gnu.org] is non-political?
It all depends on your definition of politics. As one person explained, every action you do is political, and since open source is a movement, belief, phenomenon, or whatever, open source is definitely political. Is the concept of open source in the same political arena as the human rights, homosexuality, liberal vs. conservative, etc. Not really. So when I said "Some things should be political, open source is not one of them." What I really meant was "Some areas of our life should involve political forums, such as reading the newspaper, hearing election debates, watching TV, and so on. These forums generally cover divisive issues on morality, human rights, and partisan spectrums. But, the open source movement should not become one of these types of forums that discuss such divisive issues. Doing so would mean far fewer people would get involved in open source, and that would cause the open source movement to suffer."
Because that would have been a mouthful, I narrowed down the thought down to 12 words. =)
Because this would always occur:
American: Alright sir, here's yo go, remember, you need to promote human rights to use this product.
European: Right, we Europeans are very much in favor of human rights.
American: No no, you have to use *our* definition of human rights...you know...the right definition.
European: Wait, I thought we were using the European definition. Because, well, you Americans don't know the first thing about human rights...you still have executions. Our definition of human rights is correct.
American: Hah, nice try, Mr.-Restricts-More-Forms-Of-Free-Speech...America is right.
Poltical, partisan, and moral viewpoints are best left to news organizations, forums, and the like. Finding open source products to meet your needs should never involve you having to think, "Now, if I use this open source filter to block certain internet sites from my 20 year old son...is that violation of human rights or not?"
P.S. I hope my addition to your quote was correct, I tried to appropriately clarify what was conveyed in the previous article.
Open source has always been about bringing people together, regardless of their political viewpoints, in order to give others open, free, and high quality software.
The last thing open source needs is divisive political themes attached to products. "Use this only if you support homosexual marriages" ..."Only members of the NRA are allowed to contribute to this product"..."This product can only be used to promote the views expressed by Amnesty International."
Some things should be political, open source is not one of them.
I always thought that one of open source's themes is to have small, easy to understand EULA's.
The last thing we need is for bland legal contracts to start containing political messages.
I often spend my Saturdays out in the wilderness, crouched up against a tree, reading a wonderful novel on my battery powered laptop using wordpad. Ahh yes, it is so practical... Quotes like this guy's make me wish we could somehow mod down news articles. (-1, Lost Track of Reality).
I think the article plainly answered this question when they said:
"Microsoft heeft diverse makers van software met in de naam 'Windows' gevraagd om een andere naam te kiezen."
---
Abortions for some, minature American flags for others! - Kodos
The quark matter/stranglets hitting earth story was covered on May 12, Nov 22, and Nov 25
We should start a tradition on slashdot where we only post stupid sentences for dupe stories. Here's mine:
However, its very tricky. Freedom of speech is only allowed at schools in certain cases. Taxpayers pay the government to educate students...and so any free speech that is disruptive to this educational system is bad and can legally be stopped. As another supreme court case put it, you can speak freely anywhere in a school where learning isn't taking place, such as a cafeteria or hallway.
I personally tested this a long time ago by writing a newspaper that criticized my high school. I was very careful not to make false accusations or name anybody in particular. I passed out hundreds of copies of this paper at lunchtime, and I never got in trouble. School officials constantly tried to find ways to suspend me, since I violated a school rule that stated I had to have permission from them first to pass out a newspaper, but they never had the legal ground to persue any action against me.
--
Old actors don't die, they just go to Old Navy
The First Amendment only applies to America. In fact, to be more specific, it only applies to public areas. The First Amendment does not apply on my property. And it doesn't apply on Chinese property either.
Besides, we're practically the only country that fights so vigorously for every form of free speech. The Europe Union has no problem banning hate speech it finds destructive, and other countries have their own free speech problems. I do agree with Amnesty is fighting for more free speech. But its absolutely wrong to call these actions illegal when American companies are providing solutions to allow other countries to enforce their own laws.
--
Old actors don't die, they just go to Old Navy
--
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
--
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others! - Kodos
My first sentence should have read..."That made NO sense"