According to the abstract they say the problem is with the synchronization of clocks. If your clocks are not properly synchronized, the time you get by subtracting time points from different clocks doesn't give proper elapsed time.
As a simple example how wrong synchronization can affect apparent speeds, think about flights between different time zones. If you naively calculate flight times as time of arrival minus time of departure, you'll find that flights to the east take significantly longer than flights to the west, and in extreme cases flights to the west can even arrive before they started.
Now the synchronization in this experiment is more complex because they are dealing with noninertial frames, and at the precision needed there, that matters (at least according to the authors, but it seems reasonable, given the size of the effect).
I'm certainly not disputing the legitimacy of science, but in this current age of misinformation, people need to realize that science is a discipline in constant flux. Nature and the Universe tend to stay constant, following their own laws--it's Man's perceptions and understanding that are continually changing. As we learn more and more, we tune our theories, hypotheses, and laws to better understand nature's hidden mysteries.
That the observation of a sub-atomic particle appears to confound or violate established scientific law really only means that it science has yet another mystery of nature that it does not yet fully understand. Maybe the methodology is flawed. Maybe the law is flawed. But that it happens at all should certainly not surprise any scientist--it should motivate to gain a better understanding.
Sure, and that paper obviously tries to get a better understanding by adding a theoretically known effect to the calculation which they think the experimentalists have neglected in their analysis, and found that it indeed seems to give subluminal speed.
Note that there is another paper today on archive which also tries to explain the result in current theory, but using relativistic quantum theory instead of general relativity. I don't know whether one, the other, both or none are correct. But people will check this, and if at least one of the papers is right, then no new theory is needed. You may wish for a new theory to be needed, and for the superluminal speed to be real, but science is not about wishes, science is about facts.
If you take three pictures, you can process them into one. Out information processing technology is progressing much faster than our physical science.
If so, then if you take three pictures from closer up, you'll also be able to process them into one, getting even larger resolution. Also, for fast processes the three pictures may show a significantly different situation exactly at the most interesting place (namely where the fast change happens), making the processing into one impossible.
Well, typically you need a credit card if you are not (or do not reveal to be) a customer, so in principle they could track you through this. However you could always ask a friend for permission to use his card. Not a viable strategy to do illegal things (they will probably find you via your friend; also he may not stay your friend afterwards when the cops come to him), but probably enough to get around an internet ban in order to do legitimate things like online banking (assuming an internet ban would actually include checks on access points).
How the hell we are still "measuring" throughput, packet loss and RTT in 2011???? My wife want to know if she can "WATCH YOUTUBE" , "SEND A PICTURE VIA EMAIL", "PLAY HER FAVORITE SHOW ON TV".
It's like the PC. People don't care about how many GHz, GB, Mcolors the box has. They care about what they can do... It's like for cars: who's interested in checking the engine, knowing which brakes and knowing the maximum speed...
It's really time to get rid of this sticky measures...
throughput: Can it play a 1080p streaming video, or will it give up at 480p? RTT: How well will my real-time online game work?
You can find ATMs to take money out and almost all have their paycheck electronically deposited, but to find an actual cashier where you can pay a bill is practically gone.
Here in Germany, many ATMs allow to make payments as well. Also, I can send in my payment orders by (non-electronic) mail.
I suppose you could find a web cafe as your "bank", but with everyone having Internet at home and on their phones they're going the way of the payphone too.
With everyone carrying a laptop, smartphone or similar computer with him, I guess access points will remain common. What will likely become rare is the cafe also providing the actual computers.
My Roleks wrist watch was about $10, but original Rolex is about $8000. Does that mean i stole $8000 from Rolex, because that's a sale they didn't make?
Of course. Also, by buying the Roleks, you helped the manufacturer to build even more Roleks watches, thus increasing the damage. Also, since you wear that Roleks watch, people who see it might be led to buy one, too. So I'm sure the WWAA (Wrist Watch Association of America) will sue you for about $100 billion.
Oh, wait, make that $200 billion, because you posted on Slashdot about it.
Also, it might finally convince Aztecs that the Sun is not a god. And if you plant to tell me Aztecs are extinct, I have a roommate who thinks the world will end in 2012 right here to prove you wrong!
Isn't that the best proof that Aztecs are extinct? Because otherwise they'd be very busy correcting all those people misunderstanding their calendar.
If they have a picture of you driving at both check points, then they have proof it was you speeding.
No. They have only proof that you've been driving at the two check points. For example if you are two people in the car, you might have changed seats just after the first and just before the second check point.
No. Assuming with non-inclined orbits you mean equatorial orbits (i.e. inclination 0), then no inclination would mean satellites only above the equator (which of course would also be a maximum). However what I (wrongly, as I now see, at least for the original constellation; unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't tell what the current one looks like) assumed was different inclination for different GPS satellites.
But then, the satellite density is still not evenly distributed on average. Indeed, over the poles the satellite density is zero because there's not a single polar (or even close to polar) satellite. Which still looks pretty minimal to me. Moreover, the satellites make two complete orbits a sideral day (another fact I didn't know), therefore also the distribution on the longitude is not equal (otherwise it would average out due to the mismatch between orbit time and earth rotation).
Anyone, best thing would be a big banner on top of every Italian article stating: thanks to legislation XXX endorsed primarily by Berlusconi and the following political parties (list of parties), voted in the parliament by (link to a list of all names), we *strongly* suggest that you double check this article also in another language as it may not be reliable. Link to a full explanation of the problem.
Well, I guess Berlusconi would feel offended by that, and therefore order to remove it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. However usually they are called anti-relativists.
According to the abstract they say the problem is with the synchronization of clocks. If your clocks are not properly synchronized, the time you get by subtracting time points from different clocks doesn't give proper elapsed time.
As a simple example how wrong synchronization can affect apparent speeds, think about flights between different time zones. If you naively calculate flight times as time of arrival minus time of departure, you'll find that flights to the east take significantly longer than flights to the west, and in extreme cases flights to the west can even arrive before they started.
Now the synchronization in this experiment is more complex because they are dealing with noninertial frames, and at the precision needed there, that matters (at least according to the authors, but it seems reasonable, given the size of the effect).
I'm certainly not disputing the legitimacy of science, but in this current age of misinformation, people need to realize that science is a discipline in constant flux. Nature and the Universe tend to stay constant, following their own laws--it's Man's perceptions and understanding that are continually changing. As we learn more and more, we tune our theories, hypotheses, and laws to better understand nature's hidden mysteries.
That the observation of a sub-atomic particle appears to confound or violate established scientific law really only means that it science has yet another mystery of nature that it does not yet fully understand. Maybe the methodology is flawed. Maybe the law is flawed. But that it happens at all should certainly not surprise any scientist--it should motivate to gain a better understanding.
Sure, and that paper obviously tries to get a better understanding by adding a theoretically known effect to the calculation which they think the experimentalists have neglected in their analysis, and found that it indeed seems to give subluminal speed.
Note that there is another paper today on archive which also tries to explain the result in current theory, but using relativistic quantum theory instead of general relativity. I don't know whether one, the other, both or none are correct. But people will check this, and if at least one of the papers is right, then no new theory is needed. You may wish for a new theory to be needed, and for the superluminal speed to be real, but science is not about wishes, science is about facts.
Of course you can. It's just that you'll most likely not be very successful.
If you take three pictures, you can process them into one. Out information processing technology is progressing much faster than our physical science.
If so, then if you take three pictures from closer up, you'll also be able to process them into one, getting even larger resolution. Also, for fast processes the three pictures may show a significantly different situation exactly at the most interesting place (namely where the fast change happens), making the processing into one impossible.
Well, typically you need a credit card if you are not (or do not reveal to be) a customer, so in principle they could track you through this. However you could always ask a friend for permission to use his card. Not a viable strategy to do illegal things (they will probably find you via your friend; also he may not stay your friend afterwards when the cops come to him), but probably enough to get around an internet ban in order to do legitimate things like online banking (assuming an internet ban would actually include checks on access points).
How the hell we are still "measuring" throughput, packet loss and RTT in 2011????
My wife want to know if she can "WATCH YOUTUBE" , "SEND A PICTURE VIA EMAIL", "PLAY HER FAVORITE SHOW ON TV".
It's like the PC. People don't care about how many GHz, GB, Mcolors the box has. They care about what they can do...
It's like for cars: who's interested in checking the engine, knowing which brakes and knowing the maximum speed...
It's really time to get rid of this sticky measures...
throughput: Can it play a 1080p streaming video, or will it give up at 480p?
RTT: How well will my real-time online game work?
Letting it test throttling would be easy by just using up your limits before giving it the chance to measure.
Here in Germany, many ATMs allow to make payments as well. Also, I can send in my payment orders by (non-electronic) mail.
With everyone carrying a laptop, smartphone or similar computer with him, I guess access points will remain common. What will likely become rare is the cafe also providing the actual computers.
Indeed, the French pirate party split in 3 and then merged again. Not exactly the best strategy to convince people to vote for you...
Maybe they can attract Catholics that way. After all, now they are also a trinity. :-)
My Roleks wrist watch was about $10, but original Rolex is about $8000. Does that mean i stole $8000 from Rolex, because that's a sale they didn't make?
Of course. Also, by buying the Roleks, you helped the manufacturer to build even more Roleks watches, thus increasing the damage. Also, since you wear that Roleks watch, people who see it might be led to buy one, too. So I'm sure the WWAA (Wrist Watch Association of America) will sue you for about $100 billion.
Oh, wait, make that $200 billion, because you posted on Slashdot about it.
Especially with IPoAC you tend to run out of carriers quickly.
That would look bloody awesome. ;)
Not really.
The resolution difference is like seeing the same movie in 1080p instead of 303p. If you don't see the difference, you should contact an optician. :-)
Isn't that the best proof that Aztecs are extinct? Because otherwise they'd be very busy correcting all those people misunderstanding their calendar.
Oh, they have blood. It's just not red. It's usually called "money".
No. They have only proof that you've been driving at the two check points. For example if you are two people in the car, you might have changed seats just after the first and just before the second check point.
Only adds, or could also be a few subtracts among them?
SCNR
It helps, but what can you do if you favorite site serves infected 3rd party adds?
P.S: I do use noscript.
AdBlock Plus.
No. Assuming with non-inclined orbits you mean equatorial orbits (i.e. inclination 0), then no inclination would mean satellites only above the equator (which of course would also be a maximum). However what I (wrongly, as I now see, at least for the original constellation; unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't tell what the current one looks like) assumed was different inclination for different GPS satellites.
But then, the satellite density is still not evenly distributed on average. Indeed, over the poles the satellite density is zero because there's not a single polar (or even close to polar) satellite. Which still looks pretty minimal to me. Moreover, the satellites make two complete orbits a sideral day (another fact I didn't know), therefore also the distribution on the longitude is not equal (otherwise it would average out due to the mismatch between orbit time and earth rotation).
Unless all GPS satellites are on polar orbits, the satellite density should be highest above the equator, and lowest above the poles.
Hopefully it is 100% reliable.
At least in Italy.
Firefox 7 is sooooo last Monday.
Upgrade to the latest version: Firefox 789564.
You are horribly out of date. Firefox 2147483647 is the current version, to be followed by Firefox –2147483648. :-)
program, is designed to keep Web surfer's safe
Keep his safe where?
At McAfee's headquarters, of course.
Well, I guess Berlusconi would feel offended by that, and therefore order to remove it.