Of all these channels, the only one I really care about is Comedy Central, but I might watch something on Spike every once in a while. Do you think Viacom would be doing this if we could buy individual channels? They make money from ads which they bombard us with more and more every year. I think Viacom would be happy that their ads are getting to more households. I find it ridiculous that I have to pay for BET Gospel and CMT Pure Country when all I want to watch is South Park.
At first I was thinking "Great, now denialists will be even more embarrassed about using graphs that only go from 2000 (an unusually warm year) to 2008 (an unusually cool year) to show that the Earth is cooling." Then I realized that in a few years there will be another unusually cool year and they will just start their graphs at 2011 and end on that year.
Of course, I can ask the question a different way, and just make you mental. If the globe is warming, and the average temperature goes up, would it be possible for the increased water vapor as it traveled across the poles to actually generate an expanding ice sheet? If you agreed that it was possible, you'd be right
It would be possible to get more snow, just like it is possible to get big snowstorms when it is cold enough to snow. The higher temperatures keep that snow from accumulating year to year however, so you shouldn't get thicker ice sheets that last from year to year. That's why sea ice minimums and the thinning of the arctic ice even in winter agree with global warming.
You could look at studies which show a 50% decrease in cases of vaccinated children. For example for every 10000 vaccinated children, there are 200 cases. For every 10000 unvaccinated children ere are 400 cases. The real news in the article is that for children between 8 and 12 there are only 25% fewer cases among those vaccinated. The point in the summary that most of the cases were among vaccinated children was a red herring because most of the children were vaccinated. With my fictitious numbers that means that 300 out of every 10000 vaccinated children would get the disease. If you have 30000 children, 20000 of whom were vaccinated, you would expect 400 unvaccinated and 400 vaccinated to get it. The news is that 600 of the vaccinated children got it when they expected only 400. That's still a lower rate among the vaccinated children.
There may be a myth about unvaccinated children being the ones carrying the disease, but it holds a kernel of truth. Infection is a feedback mechanism. In my example above consisted of real numbers (only the percentages are real), vaccinating everyone would lower the total number of infections from 1000 to 800. Having 200 fewer children contracting and spreading the disease would likely make that number even lower.
The article does say that between 8 and 12 the vaccine only protected 24% of the time, compared to about 50% for all kids. So at 245 cases per 10,000 with full vaccinations, you would expect around 325 cases without. Of course in a school with 10,000 kids, those extra 80 cases may cause even more cases.
I think the/. Editors need to start reading the effing article and producing clearer summaries. The current summary could easily lead someone to assume you were more likely to catch the disease if you got the vaccine.
You want to know why health care costs so much in the US? It's because the costs are hidden from consumers. Drug companies and doctors don't care because insurance takes care of it. Other countries limit what price pharmaceutical companies can charge, and wouldn't you know it, they still make a profit. I don't understand why the WTO allows this barrier to free trade.
I can't RTFOR because the link on TFA goes nowhere, but what percent of the Earth's mass would also be from the impactor? My limited understanding was that the impact caused a large amount of the two bodies to go into orbit around the Earth, where some of it coalesced into the moon and the rest settled back down on the Earth. Why should there be a difference?
The more interesting thing to think about is why God allowed original sin to occur in the first place. If he knows everything that will happen, he knew that placing Adam and Eve in the garden with the tree would end up with their stomachs full of apples. If I placed my cat in a cage with a canary, I wouldn't hold my cat responsible for the inevitable conclusion.
Even more interesting for me is trying to figure out how it is moral to hold one's descendants responsible for the sins of their ancestors. If your father kills someone, should you go to jail for it? Personally I would deny any responsibility for something that happened before I was born and I would hold no one accountablle for the actions of their distant ancestors.
You still can't disprove my "Intelligent Falling" theory (IF). It simply states that an intelligent pusher has zillions of agents that push objects towards each other as if they were being pulled by some force. After all, gravity is just a theory and its weaknesses should be taught in classrooms.
If you think humans are objectively better than ants, then you are wrong. If you think humans are in some "objective" way better than bacteria, then you are wrong. If you think someone without sickle cell anemia is objectively better than someone without, or vice-versa, then you are wrong. There is no goal bringing evolution to a "higher" or more perfect level, no perfect DNA for a particular environment. All life fills a niche or it goes extinct.
Or winsshd, which is free for personal use. Their Tunnelier client is is always free and sets up a forwarded port and lets you rdp to the server you're connected to with a click.
You know someone used your computer for those actions. What if it was a trojan and someone used your computer as a proxy to launder money? What if your wife or son did it without your consent? How do they know that you have the password with enough certainty to hold you in jail for the rest of your life without trial?
It seems to over complicate it though. You are talking about 60 nanoseconds and a loose plug might have caused the discrepancy, and you have to take into account the gravitational and relativistic effects of the satellites, the earth's rotation, the distance under ground of the detector and the delay in the synchronization fiber-optic cable that brings in the GPS signal. If there is a simpler way to synchronize the clocks, why not use it?
I think you either misunderstood me or aren't explaining it very well. If you go back to how Einstein came up with special relativity, it was about plotting coordinates in space-time. Propagation of light waves is the fastest thing known and Einstein used it as the measurement. What if the actual limit were 299,822,437
meters per second instead of 299,792,458 meters per second? That would not lead to time travel. If light did travel at a constant speed in a vacuum in all reference frames, but it just wasn't quite the limit, how would that invalidate existing experiments which all use light for measurement?
Photons are used experimentally because they are easy to create and easy to detect, but they also interact. As I mentioned, light travels 90 km/s slower through air and 100,000 km/s slower through glass (and fiber-optics). Light travelling straight down through 120km of atmosphere means that it is slowed enough that it would have gone an extra 12 meters if it were in a vacuum. Neutrinos react so weakly that they don't have this problem. If you shoot light and neutrinos from a satellite at the same time, neutrinos will beat the light to the ground because the light travels more slowly through the air.
This is more like saying that distance is equal to velocity multiplied by time, and then finding a make of car where that didn't seem to be true. You would naturally expect either the speedometer or the odometer to be in error, but if they are not...
I don't follow. How does saying light travels slower than neutrinos in the earth's gravity mean that the concept of d = vt is invalid? If you look at SR and GR and replace every occurrence of "light" or "photon" with "neutrino", how does that invalidate the theory or lead to an invalid result?
That being said, I think I found my own answer. SN_1987A had neutrinos observed just three hours before visible light, which can be accounted for by the propagation of the shock wave from the core collapse to the stellar surface. At 168,000 light years distance that would seem to limit the speed difference to 1 part in 500 million if there were one.
Is there any place better than wikipedia to get info about the experiment? They seem to use signals from GPS satellites to synchronize the creation and detection events, but I wonder why? They could synchronize two clocks and drive one from CERN to the detector. There would be some drift due to mostly kinematic effects, but probably only a few nanoseconds. Maybe you could synchronize them 1/2 way between and drive them to their destinations... In any case they could be brought back to the same location and the drift could be analyzed as well.
I'm just a layperson that has an interest in physics and relativity, but what if photons travel slower than neutrinos? There's nothing magical or about photons and relativity doesn't require that they travel at the universal speed limit, does it? I mean they travel 90 km/s slower through air than a vacuum and 180,000 km/s slower through glass. What would happen if you just use neutrino speed instead of light speed for c? Is some of the problem that we have so ingrained in our heads that the "speed of light" is the maximum that we jump to time travel before thinking that there may be something that can travel 1/1000th faster?
Are there any experiments whose results can only be explained by light being the fastest thing in the universe?
Just create a new level above high called "critical" and move a random 10% of the projects to it. As programmers you should have seen this completely logical solution...
250000 sounds like a theoretical number to me. 8 hours per day of the sun directly overhead gives you a theoretical 8 kwh of energy in 1 square meter. 5 days gives you the energy content of a gallon of gasoline. That's roughly 70 gallons per year (I assume 1 year), or about 300,000 gallons per acre. That's a theoretical maximum, the sun doesn't sit overhead.
Have they figured out how to get the gasoline out of the water yet without using huge amounts of energy?
I'm not a denialist, but you should get your facts straight and not give weight to the denialist claims that we are "alarmists". Saying islands are being evacuated because the sea level has risen just over an inch in the last 10 years sounds alarmist to me. If they are being evacuated it is more likely that they are sinking due to changes in the crust and mantle.
Slashdot Mirror
Of all these channels, the only one I really care about is Comedy Central, but I might watch something on Spike every once in a while. Do you think Viacom would be doing this if we could buy individual channels? They make money from ads which they bombard us with more and more every year. I think Viacom would be happy that their ads are getting to more households. I find it ridiculous that I have to pay for BET Gospel and CMT Pure Country when all I want to watch is South Park.
You need to file form 1099-B to report bartering income.. Enjoy paying tax to the government for that old cutlery you don't even want...
If 57% of people break a law, is it the people's fault, or the law's fault?
At first I was thinking "Great, now denialists will be even more embarrassed about using graphs that only go from 2000 (an unusually warm year) to 2008 (an unusually cool year) to show that the Earth is cooling." Then I realized that in a few years there will be another unusually cool year and they will just start their graphs at 2011 and end on that year.
Of course, I can ask the question a different way, and just make you mental. If the globe is warming, and the average temperature goes up, would it be possible for the increased water vapor as it traveled across the poles to actually generate an expanding ice sheet? If you agreed that it was possible, you'd be right
It would be possible to get more snow, just like it is possible to get big snowstorms when it is cold enough to snow. The higher temperatures keep that snow from accumulating year to year however, so you shouldn't get thicker ice sheets that last from year to year. That's why sea ice minimums and the thinning of the arctic ice even in winter agree with global warming.
You could look at studies which show a 50% decrease in cases of vaccinated children. For example for every 10000 vaccinated children, there are 200 cases. For every 10000 unvaccinated children ere are 400 cases. The real news in the article is that for children between 8 and 12 there are only 25% fewer cases among those vaccinated. The point in the summary that most of the cases were among vaccinated children was a red herring because most of the children were vaccinated. With my fictitious numbers that means that 300 out of every 10000 vaccinated children would get the disease. If you have 30000 children, 20000 of whom were vaccinated, you would expect 400 unvaccinated and 400 vaccinated to get it. The news is that 600 of the vaccinated children got it when they expected only 400. That's still a lower rate among the vaccinated children.
There may be a myth about unvaccinated children being the ones carrying the disease, but it holds a kernel of truth. Infection is a feedback mechanism. In my example above consisted of real numbers (only the percentages are real), vaccinating everyone would lower the total number of infections from 1000 to 800. Having 200 fewer children contracting and spreading the disease would likely make that number even lower.
The article does say that between 8 and 12 the vaccine only protected 24% of the time, compared to about 50% for all kids. So at 245 cases per 10,000 with full vaccinations, you would expect around 325 cases without. Of course in a school with 10,000 kids, those extra 80 cases may cause even more cases.
I think the /. Editors need to start reading the effing article and producing clearer summaries. The current summary could easily lead someone to assume you were more likely to catch the disease if you got the vaccine.
You want to know why health care costs so much in the US? It's because the costs are hidden from consumers. Drug companies and doctors don't care because insurance takes care of it. Other countries limit what price pharmaceutical companies can charge, and wouldn't you know it, they still make a profit. I don't understand why the WTO allows this barrier to free trade.
But the same stuff that formed the moon would have been falling back to earth to form the crust and mantle, wouldn't it?
I can't RTFOR because the link on TFA goes nowhere, but what percent of the Earth's mass would also be from the impactor? My limited understanding was that the impact caused a large amount of the two bodies to go into orbit around the Earth, where some of it coalesced into the moon and the rest settled back down on the Earth. Why should there be a difference?
It's not just 26 new planets, it's 3 times the number of previously found stars with multiple planets. I think that's newsworthy.
The more interesting thing to think about is why God allowed original sin to occur in the first place. If he knows everything that will happen, he knew that placing Adam and Eve in the garden with the tree would end up with their stomachs full of apples. If I placed my cat in a cage with a canary, I wouldn't hold my cat responsible for the inevitable conclusion.
Even more interesting for me is trying to figure out how it is moral to hold one's descendants responsible for the sins of their ancestors. If your father kills someone, should you go to jail for it? Personally I would deny any responsibility for something that happened before I was born and I would hold no one accountablle for the actions of their distant ancestors.
You still can't disprove my "Intelligent Falling" theory (IF). It simply states that an intelligent pusher has zillions of agents that push objects towards each other as if they were being pulled by some force. After all, gravity is just a theory and its weaknesses should be taught in classrooms.
If you think humans are objectively better than ants, then you are wrong. If you think humans are in some "objective" way better than bacteria, then you are wrong. If you think someone without sickle cell anemia is objectively better than someone without, or vice-versa, then you are wrong. There is no goal bringing evolution to a "higher" or more perfect level, no perfect DNA for a particular environment. All life fills a niche or it goes extinct.
Or winsshd, which is free for personal use. Their Tunnelier client is is always free and sets up a forwarded port and lets you rdp to the server you're connected to with a click.
You know someone used your computer for those actions. What if it was a trojan and someone used your computer as a proxy to launder money? What if your wife or son did it without your consent? How do they know that you have the password with enough certainty to hold you in jail for the rest of your life without trial?
It seems to over complicate it though. You are talking about 60 nanoseconds and a loose plug might have caused the discrepancy, and you have to take into account the gravitational and relativistic effects of the satellites, the earth's rotation, the distance under ground of the detector and the delay in the synchronization fiber-optic cable that brings in the GPS signal. If there is a simpler way to synchronize the clocks, why not use it?
I think you either misunderstood me or aren't explaining it very well. If you go back to how Einstein came up with special relativity, it was about plotting coordinates in space-time. Propagation of light waves is the fastest thing known and Einstein used it as the measurement. What if the actual limit were 299,822,437 meters per second instead of 299,792,458 meters per second? That would not lead to time travel. If light did travel at a constant speed in a vacuum in all reference frames, but it just wasn't quite the limit, how would that invalidate existing experiments which all use light for measurement?
Photons are used experimentally because they are easy to create and easy to detect, but they also interact. As I mentioned, light travels 90 km/s slower through air and 100,000 km/s slower through glass (and fiber-optics). Light travelling straight down through 120km of atmosphere means that it is slowed enough that it would have gone an extra 12 meters if it were in a vacuum. Neutrinos react so weakly that they don't have this problem. If you shoot light and neutrinos from a satellite at the same time, neutrinos will beat the light to the ground because the light travels more slowly through the air.
I don't follow. How does saying light travels slower than neutrinos in the earth's gravity mean that the concept of d = vt is invalid? If you look at SR and GR and replace every occurrence of "light" or "photon" with "neutrino", how does that invalidate the theory or lead to an invalid result?
That being said, I think I found my own answer. SN_1987A had neutrinos observed just three hours before visible light, which can be accounted for by the propagation of the shock wave from the core collapse to the stellar surface. At 168,000 light years distance that would seem to limit the speed difference to 1 part in 500 million if there were one.
Is there any place better than wikipedia to get info about the experiment? They seem to use signals from GPS satellites to synchronize the creation and detection events, but I wonder why? They could synchronize two clocks and drive one from CERN to the detector. There would be some drift due to mostly kinematic effects, but probably only a few nanoseconds. Maybe you could synchronize them 1/2 way between and drive them to their destinations... In any case they could be brought back to the same location and the drift could be analyzed as well.
I'm just a layperson that has an interest in physics and relativity, but what if photons travel slower than neutrinos? There's nothing magical or about photons and relativity doesn't require that they travel at the universal speed limit, does it? I mean they travel 90 km/s slower through air than a vacuum and 180,000 km/s slower through glass. What would happen if you just use neutrino speed instead of light speed for c? Is some of the problem that we have so ingrained in our heads that the "speed of light" is the maximum that we jump to time travel before thinking that there may be something that can travel 1/1000th faster?
Are there any experiments whose results can only be explained by light being the fastest thing in the universe?
Just create a new level above high called "critical" and move a random 10% of the projects to it. As programmers you should have seen this completely logical solution...
250000 sounds like a theoretical number to me. 8 hours per day of the sun directly overhead gives you a theoretical 8 kwh of energy in 1 square meter. 5 days gives you the energy content of a gallon of gasoline. That's roughly 70 gallons per year (I assume 1 year), or about 300,000 gallons per acre. That's a theoretical maximum, the sun doesn't sit overhead. Have they figured out how to get the gasoline out of the water yet without using huge amounts of energy?
I'm not a denialist, but you should get your facts straight and not give weight to the denialist claims that we are "alarmists". Saying islands are being evacuated because the sea level has risen just over an inch in the last 10 years sounds alarmist to me. If they are being evacuated it is more likely that they are sinking due to changes in the crust and mantle.
I don't like people that repeat lies easily proven to be false.
The earth will be fine no matter what the temperature is, but humanity and civilization flourished under current conditions.