Right... that's why it was gleefully hacked in all of the preceding years. It's time to put that tired old chestnut to bed and think up some new material.
If that ChromeOS box had been sitting minding it's own business with no ports open, it wouldn't have been compromised. It WAS compromised, because the Chrome browser opened ports, received data, and did things. Chrome is at fault.
That doesn't mean the bug in Linux shouldn't be fixed, but Chrome is the program that wasn't properly sanitizing outside data.
It's about as good, with a little more flexibility, than a regular fixed focal length cell phone camera. It doesn't compare to a camera with equivalent electronics and optics but with a real optical zoom.
My 6 year old cell phone has a camera with a mechanical zoom, augmented by a (horrible) digital zoom. My new one doesn't zoom at all. Is that a quirk, or just that it's too complicated for the masses?
Chances are your new cell phone camera outperforms the old one by enough that you can get better pictures through cropping than the old one could with optics. "Digital zoom" itself is nothing but cropping. If your new phone is a smartphone it's almost certain you can get a photo editing app and "digital zoom" to your heart's content. If not, you certainly can on your computer.
These are ballistic missiles, not cruise missiles. They're essentially suborbital (and not sub- by much at that) spacecraft that reenter without any thought for slowing down to land. So the answer to your question is: not a chance.
The Higgs field is part of the a particular formulation of quantum field theory that is often called the Standard Model. There are lots of other quantum field theories, and other theories that are not field theories, not quantum theories, or both, that may or may not have any relation to reality.
The existence of a Higgs particle in a particular energy range, detectable by such and such means, is a hypothesis, motivated by theory called the Standard Model, other more speculative theories which may one day be incorporated into the standard model, and practicality (most of the theorized Higgs particles are simply out of reach of our collider building capabilities).
Making the particular observations specified by the hypothesis supports that hypothesis, and also the theory that originated the hypothesis. These observations have already been replicated, by the way. Making other observations specified by the hypothesis will further support it. Currently we have decent evidence for a particle, but not so much evidence about whether it has the specific properties required to be the Higgs particle predicted by the theory.
Theories are not accepted hypotheses! Particularly not in physics. Unfortunately this erroneous definition seems to have made it into several dictionaries. Of course, people who write dictionaries are almost never scientists.
How does the Higgs Boson giver mass to other particles?
The theory behind the Higgs mechanism motivated the search for the Higgs particle in the first place. It's well worked out. Check Wikipedia.
How is a Higgs Boson produced?
Practical answer: if you put enough energy in a small enough space you'll get all kinds of particles. Some of those will be Higgs'. Sciency answer: the Higgs particle is just a manifestation of a perturbation in the Higgs field, just like every other fundamental particle is a perturbation in it's own quantum field in modern quantum field theory. To produce a Higgs you pump enough energy into the Higgs field in a particular location.
Can we produce these particles at will?
If at will you mean by smashing other particles together at high speed and occasionally getting a Higgs out, yes. If you mean specifically producing a Higgs on command, no.
OMG, religious zealots might start believing in god! Uh, wait....
I really don't understand people who get excited over that nickname. Leon Lederman nicknamed the Higgs boson the goddamn particle for his book, and his publisher made him change it. People who aren't zealots know the particle has nothing to do with god and don't care. People who are zealots... will likely remain zealots. The only ones affected are weird edge cases like you who get excited about what you think other people might get excited about.
The Higgs (named after Peter Higgs, not Higg, as your use of the possessive apostrophe would suggest) boson gives fermions and several bosons (including itself) their intrinsic mass. Even when discussing relativity, "mass" usually refers to the intrinsic Newtonian-style mass that you mean when you say "rest mass." "Relativistic mass" means the total energy of a system divided by c^2, which includes the intrinsic mass.
I also doubt the OP is referring to relativistic mass because he's talking about reducing mass. It's easy to reduce relativistic mass.
Google is just doing their part to teach everyone the dangers of the cloud. They seem to have gotten through to you. Instead of migrating your stuff to some other web service, as glwtta suggests, set up something of your own.
Yeah right. The general public might not know what an RSS feed is (they also don't know what TCP/IP is) but a lot of them use them all the time through all those news readers that are so popular on smart phones and tablets.
RSS isn't dead. Google has decided RSS in the browser isn't an essential feature. I agree. I use RSS every day but I've never used it in a browser, except to see if it was useful.
Unfortunately all we're doing is encouraging that problem. Educational materials and lectures are supposed to use all sorts of tricks and multimedia to engage the learner now. At some point many people are going to find themselves presented with a problem to solve or a job to do that hasn't been carefully tailored for our entertainment, and very few of us are going to be equipped to do so.
"65% believe patients should have only limited access. Four percent said patients should have no access at all."
"Doctors who feel that way probably view patients are raw material for their studies"
Whether you meant to or not, you attributed the motives of 69% of doctors to proprietary interests in their "studies." That assertion is clearly wrong because nowhere near 69% of doctors do research and the ones that do have to make it very clear to any patients involved what they're doing. That implication, and your use of the phrase "raw material for their studies", reinforced by your last paragraph, suggests to the reader that you think a lot of research is being done on patients, who are viewed callously, without patient consent or knowledge. Although that is a popular belief (i.e. a conspiracy theory), it's simply not true.
I don't see what relevance your use of the word "patients" has. I also don't see why you think you've hit a nerve with me. Was it my suggestion that you need to be educated? I was only echoing an (admittedly snotty) suggestion you made in your own post.
Since you asked, I think patients should have the ability to read most of their medical records. Medical staff's notes, which would in normal circumstances be private but are usually part of medical records by law, should not be available to patients (or anybody else), except by court order or under other special circumstances.
You know, all those students are a great labour pool. The schools could just sign them up for one of those "make $2500 a month from home!" jobs stuffing envelopes or whatever. That would relieve their funding pressure!
No service provider should be collecting data about any school kid. If they go home and sign into Facebook, that's their decision. At school, it's not.
Microsoft may have written this law, but, as described, it sounds like a good one.
The process is subjected to continuous auditing that would probably make your HR lackey quit. But the auditing is done by professionals who know what they're doing, rather than patients and their families who have a strong emotional involvement.
There are arguments in favour of open medical records, but "auditing" isn't one of them.
The VAST majority of physicians don't do "studies." They treat people with colds or food poisoning.
The ones who do "studies" have to have informed consent. Which means if someone's going to use you in a study they must explain to you in detail, and make sure you understand, what it's about, why they're doing it, what they hope to learn, how your information will be used, etc. And get you to sign saying that it's okay.
Perhaps you need to give the conspiracy theories a break and be educated a bit yourself.
"Just as stupid and with the same potential casualties"
So essentially zero? Airliners are built to handle high speed impacts with birds. Running into a little bit of flying styrofoam isn't going to do anything.
Your grocery store just needs to get decent ones. Ours are great. There's rarely a problem, and there's a dedicated employee for every four self-checkouts for when there is. If there's a bored cashier with nobody in line I'll usually go through that way, but otherwise the self checkout is faster.
Slashdot Mirror
Right... that's why it was gleefully hacked in all of the preceding years. It's time to put that tired old chestnut to bed and think up some new material.
If that ChromeOS box had been sitting minding it's own business with no ports open, it wouldn't have been compromised. It WAS compromised, because the Chrome browser opened ports, received data, and did things. Chrome is at fault.
That doesn't mean the bug in Linux shouldn't be fixed, but Chrome is the program that wasn't properly sanitizing outside data.
Interesting. When my phone rings when I'm talking to someone I switch it to vibrate and apologize for not having done so before.
It's about as good, with a little more flexibility, than a regular fixed focal length cell phone camera. It doesn't compare to a camera with equivalent electronics and optics but with a real optical zoom.
They died because they were a ploy to sell music to audiophiles.
SACDs didn't have any audio quality advantages over regular CDs, and actually some disadvantages, plus they were horribly expensive.
Chances are your new cell phone camera outperforms the old one by enough that you can get better pictures through cropping than the old one could with optics. "Digital zoom" itself is nothing but cropping. If your new phone is a smartphone it's almost certain you can get a photo editing app and "digital zoom" to your heart's content. If not, you certainly can on your computer.
These are ballistic missiles, not cruise missiles. They're essentially suborbital (and not sub- by much at that) spacecraft that reenter without any thought for slowing down to land. So the answer to your question is: not a chance.
The Higgs field is part of the a particular formulation of quantum field theory that is often called the Standard Model. There are lots of other quantum field theories, and other theories that are not field theories, not quantum theories, or both, that may or may not have any relation to reality.
The existence of a Higgs particle in a particular energy range, detectable by such and such means, is a hypothesis, motivated by theory called the Standard Model, other more speculative theories which may one day be incorporated into the standard model, and practicality (most of the theorized Higgs particles are simply out of reach of our collider building capabilities).
Making the particular observations specified by the hypothesis supports that hypothesis, and also the theory that originated the hypothesis. These observations have already been replicated, by the way. Making other observations specified by the hypothesis will further support it. Currently we have decent evidence for a particle, but not so much evidence about whether it has the specific properties required to be the Higgs particle predicted by the theory.
Theories are not accepted hypotheses! Particularly not in physics. Unfortunately this erroneous definition seems to have made it into several dictionaries. Of course, people who write dictionaries are almost never scientists.
The theory behind the Higgs mechanism motivated the search for the Higgs particle in the first place. It's well worked out. Check Wikipedia.
Practical answer: if you put enough energy in a small enough space you'll get all kinds of particles. Some of those will be Higgs'.
Sciency answer: the Higgs particle is just a manifestation of a perturbation in the Higgs field, just like every other fundamental particle is a perturbation in it's own quantum field in modern quantum field theory. To produce a Higgs you pump enough energy into the Higgs field in a particular location.
If at will you mean by smashing other particles together at high speed and occasionally getting a Higgs out, yes. If you mean specifically producing a Higgs on command, no.
No. The Higgs field doesn't have anything to do with gravity: http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/
OMG, religious zealots might start believing in god! Uh, wait....
I really don't understand people who get excited over that nickname. Leon Lederman nicknamed the Higgs boson the goddamn particle for his book, and his publisher made him change it. People who aren't zealots know the particle has nothing to do with god and don't care. People who are zealots... will likely remain zealots. The only ones affected are weird edge cases like you who get excited about what you think other people might get excited about.
The Higgs (named after Peter Higgs, not Higg, as your use of the possessive apostrophe would suggest) boson gives fermions and several bosons (including itself) their intrinsic mass. Even when discussing relativity, "mass" usually refers to the intrinsic Newtonian-style mass that you mean when you say "rest mass." "Relativistic mass" means the total energy of a system divided by c^2, which includes the intrinsic mass.
I also doubt the OP is referring to relativistic mass because he's talking about reducing mass. It's easy to reduce relativistic mass.
That is one of the reasons that the LHC has multiple detectors built by competing teams.
Google is just doing their part to teach everyone the dangers of the cloud. They seem to have gotten through to you. Instead of migrating your stuff to some other web service, as glwtta suggests, set up something of your own.
Yeah right. The general public might not know what an RSS feed is (they also don't know what TCP/IP is) but a lot of them use them all the time through all those news readers that are so popular on smart phones and tablets.
RSS isn't dead. Google has decided RSS in the browser isn't an essential feature. I agree. I use RSS every day but I've never used it in a browser, except to see if it was useful.
Unfortunately all we're doing is encouraging that problem. Educational materials and lectures are supposed to use all sorts of tricks and multimedia to engage the learner now. At some point many people are going to find themselves presented with a problem to solve or a job to do that hasn't been carefully tailored for our entertainment, and very few of us are going to be equipped to do so.
You must be a big fan of TV news programs then.
"65% believe patients should have only limited access. Four percent said patients should have no access at all."
"Doctors who feel that way probably view patients are raw material for their studies"
Whether you meant to or not, you attributed the motives of 69% of doctors to proprietary interests in their "studies." That assertion is clearly wrong because nowhere near 69% of doctors do research and the ones that do have to make it very clear to any patients involved what they're doing. That implication, and your use of the phrase "raw material for their studies", reinforced by your last paragraph, suggests to the reader that you think a lot of research is being done on patients, who are viewed callously, without patient consent or knowledge. Although that is a popular belief (i.e. a conspiracy theory), it's simply not true.
I don't see what relevance your use of the word "patients" has. I also don't see why you think you've hit a nerve with me. Was it my suggestion that you need to be educated? I was only echoing an (admittedly snotty) suggestion you made in your own post.
Since you asked, I think patients should have the ability to read most of their medical records. Medical staff's notes, which would in normal circumstances be private but are usually part of medical records by law, should not be available to patients (or anybody else), except by court order or under other special circumstances.
You know, all those students are a great labour pool. The schools could just sign them up for one of those "make $2500 a month from home!" jobs stuffing envelopes or whatever. That would relieve their funding pressure!
I see a growing market in clothing with integrated IR LEDs.
No service provider should be collecting data about any school kid. If they go home and sign into Facebook, that's their decision. At school, it's not.
Microsoft may have written this law, but, as described, it sounds like a good one.
The process is subjected to continuous auditing that would probably make your HR lackey quit. But the auditing is done by professionals who know what they're doing, rather than patients and their families who have a strong emotional involvement.
There are arguments in favour of open medical records, but "auditing" isn't one of them.
The VAST majority of physicians don't do "studies." They treat people with colds or food poisoning.
The ones who do "studies" have to have informed consent. Which means if someone's going to use you in a study they must explain to you in detail, and make sure you understand, what it's about, why they're doing it, what they hope to learn, how your information will be used, etc. And get you to sign saying that it's okay.
Perhaps you need to give the conspiracy theories a break and be educated a bit yourself.
That would be the limited access that 65% apparently favour.
"Just as stupid and with the same potential casualties"
So essentially zero? Airliners are built to handle high speed impacts with birds. Running into a little bit of flying styrofoam isn't going to do anything.
Your grocery store just needs to get decent ones. Ours are great. There's rarely a problem, and there's a dedicated employee for every four self-checkouts for when there is. If there's a bored cashier with nobody in line I'll usually go through that way, but otherwise the self checkout is faster.