I have a somewhat different point of view to most posters on this thread
The HBO producers paid money to make this show. Lots of money. They probably spent more on it than you'll earn in your lifetime. It's their creation, they made it. They have the right to show it when, where and how they want. They have the right to use a business model you think is doomed. They have the right to charge $25/ep.
The sense of entitlement from most posters on this thread is staggering.
The biggest reason this will never happen is that the builders spend 19.5 years and trillion(s) of dollars on it, and then one of the literally millions of components fails and the whole thing blows up. Or an opposing nation "accidentally" fires a missile at it, or terrorists blow it up. It would just be such a massive waste. Of course, nobody would be financing the project without massive insurance, and the reinsurers would charge through the roof. This is nothing like the space shuttle development where we have a few of them, or if one blows up we can build another one .
The thing I don't get is, how can a single particle comprised of just 3 quarks be comparable in mass to an entire atom (lithium atom) as stated in the summary? I realize lithium is low on the scale with only 3 protons
The quark masses are , in MeV and fairly approximately: up=3, down=5, strange=101, charm=1270, bottom=4190, top=172000
The atomic weight of lithium (6-7 nucleons) is 6.941, so this is a mass of about 6500 MeV . As you can see, it is the single bottom quark that provides the bulk of the mass in a bottom baryon. (Of course, the mass in the form of kinetic energy of quarks and gluons, and rest mass of gluons and 'sea' quarks and gluons, as mentioned by other posters, is also a factor)
Different quarks have different masses. The ones forming protons and neutrons (u, d) happen to be the most lightweight of all.
It's not really a coincidence; stable matter is formed of the two lightest types of quark, because the heavier types are unstable by definition (they are not the lightest type, so they tend to decay into the lightest type).
Perhaps a better explanation is to say that a proton consists of dozens of quarks and gluons of various flavour, colour, and anti-ness, however it has an excess of two more up quark than up antiquarks, and one more down quark than down antiquarks. The evidence for this is that when the LHC collides protons, the vast majority of observed interactions are gluon-gluon, or low energy quarks (as evinced by the energy of the products).
You could have two layers of detector, and measure the location of the gamma ray as it passes through both.
Photons don't work like this; if you measure its position at one point then its momentum is undefined. (In classical terms, one would say that the photon interacts with the first detector, e.g. gets diffracted)
As our study suggests, the TCP rainfall reductions where not of catastrophic proportions,
Their proof-reading is the only catastrophic thing here. There's no "h" anywhere near "w" or "e" so it can't be a typo (unless they have a dvorak keyboard?) This error didn't exist in the 1980 and 1990s, it seems to have started up more recently than that.
He rents the villa (his app to buy it was denied by the government)
However, how fucking cool is he though. The newspaper calls him "Mr. Dotcom" ! Winner, Gumball 3000. World champion of COD3: Modern Warfare. Jailed for hacking. Fat and doesn't care. I would so trade my CV for his. The only thing he's missing is Key Grip
Disagree, the first time I saw C code I was struck by how simple and logical it was
You actually had 'AND' and 'OR' type operations that worked like they should.. using boolean logic in micros BASIC was pretty iffy. And you can improve on GOTO 180*(i=1)+240*(i=2)+280*(i=3)+....+5420*(i=72)
Why is angular momentum conserved? Because the laws of physics appear to be symmetric under rotations (simplifying a tad). Why is that the case? Hell if I know.
I can elaborate on this - thanks to reading Lumo's blog today!
Imagine you perform some experiment. Then you rotate your experiment, along with the entire universe, so it is pointing north-east instead of north. You will of course get the same result as you did the first time. In fact it seems tautological. How would you even know that you had done this rotation, since everything rotated? In fact that is the definition of rotational symmetry.
You have alluded to Noether's theorem without really understanding it. Turn the previous paragraph around; we performed a spatial rotation but 'nothing changed'. What does 'nothing changed' mean? It means 'everything' stayed the same. Quantify 'everything' more precisely: there was a quantity conserved by the rotation. Angular momentum is the name we give to THE quantity conserved under spatial rotation, and it is a vector quantity because the rotation has a size and direction.
Similarly, 'momentum' is what we call THE vector quantity conserved by a spatial translation, and 'energy' is THE scalar quantity conserved by a time translation (which has no direction - forward/backward is covered by the scalar being positive or negative).
By 'THE', I mean that 'energy' encompasses every single thing that is conserved by time translation. This includes kinetic energy, potential energy, energy of mass, and so on. I could have said 'mass-energy' equivalently. Similarly, there is nothing explicitly conserved by spatial rotation that isn't 'angular momentum'.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a somewhat different point of view to most posters on this thread
The HBO producers paid money to make this show. Lots of money. They probably spent more on it than you'll earn in your lifetime.
It's their creation, they made it. They have the right to show it when, where and how they want. They have the right to use a business model you think is doomed. They have the right to charge $25/ep.
The sense of entitlement from most posters on this thread is staggering.
Wow, what has slashdot come to when posts are getting modded up for posting basic arithmetic :)
The biggest reason this will never happen is that the builders spend 19.5 years and trillion(s) of dollars on it, and then one of the literally millions of components fails and the whole thing blows up. Or an opposing nation "accidentally" fires a missile at it, or terrorists blow it up. It would just be such a massive waste. Of course, nobody would be financing the project without massive insurance, and the reinsurers would charge through the roof. This is nothing like the space shuttle development where we have a few of them, or if one blows up we can build another one .
The thing I don't get is, how can a single particle comprised of just 3 quarks be comparable in mass to an entire atom (lithium atom) as stated in the summary? I realize lithium is low on the scale with only 3 protons
The quark masses are , in MeV and fairly approximately: up=3, down=5, strange=101, charm=1270, bottom=4190, top=172000
The atomic weight of lithium (6-7 nucleons) is 6.941, so this is a mass of about 6500 MeV . As you can see, it is the single bottom quark that provides the bulk of the mass in a bottom baryon. (Of course, the mass in the form of kinetic energy of quarks and gluons, and rest mass of gluons and 'sea' quarks and gluons, as mentioned by other posters, is also a factor)
[all data from Wikipedia]
Different quarks have different masses. The ones forming protons and neutrons (u, d) happen to be the most lightweight of all.
It's not really a coincidence; stable matter is formed of the two lightest types of quark, because the heavier types are unstable by definition (they are not the lightest type, so they tend to decay into the lightest type).
Perhaps a better explanation is to say that a proton consists of dozens of quarks and gluons of various flavour, colour, and anti-ness, however it has an excess of two more up quark than up antiquarks, and one more down quark than down antiquarks. The evidence for this is that when the LHC collides protons, the vast majority of observed interactions are gluon-gluon, or low energy quarks (as evinced by the energy of the products).
For more info see http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadroncolliderfaq/whats-a-proton-anyway/ plus followup articles
same reason I'm still using a dial-up model with in-band si+++ATH
NO CARRIER
You could have two layers of detector, and measure the location of the gamma ray as it passes through both.
Photons don't work like this; if you measure its position at one point then its momentum is undefined. (In classical terms, one would say that the photon interacts with the first detector, e.g. gets diffracted)
From TFA:
As our study suggests, the TCP rainfall reductions where not of catastrophic proportions,
Their proof-reading is the only catastrophic thing here. There's no "h" anywhere near "w" or "e" so it can't be a typo (unless they have a dvorak keyboard?)
This error didn't exist in the 1980 and 1990s, it seems to have started up more recently than that.
It should be noted that Tor didn't actually consult the author about the release date
Nobody mentioned it yet, but the 4 TeV is the energy per proton, so the energy of each collision is 8 TeV. 2011 operated at 7 TeV.
Einstein clearly didn't know about Mississippis
Megaupload was the only known location of the videos accompanying http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54/poker-beats-brags-variance/bbv-grossest-craziest-night-my-life-very-graphic-tl-mr-240866/
It would be a travesty if these were lost!
Is it possible to view the list of textbooks currently on the system (without buying the app)?
He rents the villa (his app to buy it was denied by the government)
However, how fucking cool is he though. The newspaper calls him "Mr. Dotcom" ! Winner, Gumball 3000. World champion of COD3: Modern Warfare. Jailed for hacking. Fat and doesn't care. I would so trade my CV for his. The only thing he's missing is Key Grip
This SOPA thing must be really awful if it's making people say the DMCA is good!
Is an ISP responsible when its users infringe copyright?
As a New Zealander I'd really like to know why our taxpayer money is being spent on enforcing U.S. laws
Better explanation of why CO2 levels don't have an impact on glaciation cycles, http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/will-co2-save-us-from-next-ice-age.html
Agree that the murderer should be jailed; however the situation shouldn't even have arisen in the first place.
An undercover policeman was installing a covert GPS tracker on the car of a suspected criminal; the suspect saw him doing it and shot him dead.
The legal status of this is unclear here too, it hasn't either been ruled legal or illegal.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10669854
How will Dan Bernstein respond to the discovery that his hash functions are insecure?
a) "I never said they were secure"
b) "They are secure, they were just implemented wrongly"
c) "You idiots"
Disagree, the first time I saw C code I was struck by how simple and logical it was
You actually had 'AND' and 'OR' type operations that worked like they should.. using boolean logic in micros BASIC was pretty iffy.
And you can improve on GOTO 180*(i=1)+240*(i=2)+280*(i=3)+....+5420*(i=72)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C1X
Why is angular momentum conserved? Because the laws of physics appear to be symmetric under rotations (simplifying a tad). Why is that the case? Hell if I know.
I can elaborate on this - thanks to reading Lumo's blog today!
Imagine you perform some experiment. Then you rotate your experiment, along with the entire universe, so it is pointing north-east instead of north. You will of course get the same result as you did the first time. In fact it seems tautological. How would you even know that you had done this rotation, since everything rotated? In fact that is the definition of rotational symmetry.
You have alluded to Noether's theorem without really understanding it. Turn the previous paragraph around; we performed a spatial rotation but 'nothing changed'. What does 'nothing changed' mean? It means 'everything' stayed the same. Quantify 'everything' more precisely: there was a quantity conserved by the rotation. Angular momentum is the name we give to THE quantity conserved under spatial rotation, and it is a vector quantity because the rotation has a size and direction.
Similarly, 'momentum' is what we call THE vector quantity conserved by a spatial translation, and 'energy' is THE scalar quantity conserved by a time translation (which has no direction - forward/backward is covered by the scalar being positive or negative).
By 'THE', I mean that 'energy' encompasses every single thing that is conserved by time translation. This includes kinetic energy, potential energy, energy of mass, and so on. I could have said 'mass-energy' equivalently. Similarly, there is nothing explicitly conserved by spatial rotation that isn't 'angular momentum'.