Where did you get that number for the energy necessary to create the black hole? The earth turning into a black hole would release a lot of energy, not consume it. All of the gravitational potential energy would be released. Of course there is the question of how you actually compact the matter into a 1.5 cm sphere. So maybe that's the energy you're talking about.
The court is not saying the executive branch can break laws set by the legislature. The court is saying that the law that the legislature wrote is written in such a way that it does not apply to the executive branch. If Congress wanted to write it differently, they could have. And still could, for that matter.
I guess I'm looking at this from a different point of view from most of the comments so far. I read the article, and I'm thinking "Wow! What a cool new way of attacking an old problem!" It's a brand new technology, I don't expect it to be immediately better than decades old technology overnight. I just like the new technique and the micro-scale optics. Then again, I am studying optics in graduate school so I might be a bit biased...
That's just one possible use. Another huge advantage is that it focuses the light, so that a 1 square meter of light can be coated with this cheap stuff, and then it focuses the light to a 1 square cm of silicon or whatever, which is expensive.
Upgrading the phone and cable lines to optical is exactly what we need the -iums for. Silicon is no good as a diode laser (or in some cases, no good as an optical detector), you want something like Indium Gallium Arsenide (InGaAs).
Every printer and copier (manufactured by the big name manufacturers you have heard of) in the world has unique finger printed water marking that identify its serial number, and where it was sold.
The link does not say that at all. It says that by looking at the printing characteristics, you can identify the model of the printer (i.e., just by data that appears in the printed image as a byproduct of the printing process, not by anything intentionally added by the manufacturer). Furthermore, there would be no way of identifying which printer of a certain model made the printed image without having reference pages to compare to.
Based on your logic, you obviously wouldn't have a problem with raising people and slaughtering them for food. After all, it's just a chemical reaction.
At this point, you have as much of a responsibility to take care of your father as parents do to take care of their children. And you are apparently failing in that responsibility. Maybe you have tried repeatedly and forcefully (and I'm wrong), but it doesn't sound like it.
Except you have the beach split up in to two different sections. One sections selects a vendor (i.e. primaries) to compete against the other. The people making that selection want a vendor in the center of their beach. So you end up with 1/4 and 3/4 anyway.
Of course what actually happens is as soon as the vendors at 1/4 and 3/4 get picked by their side, they run as fast as they can to the center:). That's better than just a popular vote among two people who started out as nothing more than a set of "principles" taken directly from the very center (imo).
So you think it would be a good idea to release the full details on the best, fastest, cheapest way to make the biggest nuclear bomb. And you think that we should release the names, identities, and covers of all of our intelligence agents, including ones that may be undercover in organizations such as Al Qaeda. We should release all military plans in Iraq prior to executing them, and release all security information about our bases there, such as patrol patterns, shift changes, known weaknesses, and even all encryption keys?
I don't see the problem with holding both of those points (although I am personally against the death penalty in most cases). Pro-life because of the belief that life begins at conception, and an innocent life should not be destroyed. Pro-death-penalty because of the belief that some actions warrant such a sentence. Where is the conflict?
What's the practical difference between a government mandated tax and a government mandated raise in basic utility rates that goes to some private corporation that does nothing beneficial to the citizens?
So Delmarva Power will be legally required to buy this electricity, and at the same time will have to pay the cost of the infrastructure to supply the full load of electricity, in case of little/no wind. Since the cost of this infrastructure is generally a bigger cost than the actual electricity itself, they will be forced to raise rates. So the OP is correct, the consumers will be getting screwed by paying higher electricity bills, and this "green" company will make a killing through government mandates.
Pretty much the only relevant factor is the initial energy input. When a cosmic ray or particle collision occurs, it creates a shower of particles, so your idea of single (in cosmic rays) vs. many (in accelerators) high energy particles is not what really happens. It's many high energy particles in either case.
Be aware that you are advocating ignorance (legally mandated ignorance) over knowledge, because of some insignificant chance that the knowledge can cause harm.
An interesting observation is that imaginary numbers are completely unnecessary (but of course quite useful) for most engineering (e.g., signal processing). It is only in quantum mechanics that imaginary numbers are necessary to describe something physical.
Here's a little thought experiment: You have a chamber on the bottom of the ocean, some compartment of which is filled with H2 and O2, at room temperature and pressure. You burn this, extracting all of the chemical energy in the gas, and change the volume of the compartment while doing it (but not changing the volume of the whole chamber), so that you always have STP conditions in your compartment. You now have room temperature water, which can be ejected from the compartment without any transfer of energy, since water is incompressible.
What you did in the chamber extracts exactly the same amount of energy from the H2 and O2 as you would get on the surface, except you now have extra empty space in your chamber, which can be used to extract energy, since it is under pressure. The point being that splitting the H2 and O2 on the ocean floor would take more energy than you could get out of it at the surface (i.e. this proposal wouldn't work). Cool idea though.
Because the summary is wrong. This "loophole" has been well-known for some time now. It can be compensated for very easily, and in fact is compensated for with current QC implementations.
So exactly which originalist interpretation are you thinking of? When, in the history of our country, have we granted Constitutional rights to the enemy in wartime? I don't believe we put German POWs on trial, or gave them habeas corpus. And doing so did not violate the Constitution then, and it does not violate the Constitution now.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did you get that number for the energy necessary to create the black hole? The earth turning into a black hole would release a lot of energy, not consume it. All of the gravitational potential energy would be released. Of course there is the question of how you actually compact the matter into a 1.5 cm sphere. So maybe that's the energy you're talking about.
The court is not saying the executive branch can break laws set by the legislature. The court is saying that the law that the legislature wrote is written in such a way that it does not apply to the executive branch. If Congress wanted to write it differently, they could have. And still could, for that matter.
For whom you voted is protected, but if you voted, and in most states' primaries, for which party you voted, are both recorded.
I guess I'm looking at this from a different point of view from most of the comments so far. I read the article, and I'm thinking "Wow! What a cool new way of attacking an old problem!" It's a brand new technology, I don't expect it to be immediately better than decades old technology overnight. I just like the new technique and the micro-scale optics. Then again, I am studying optics in graduate school so I might be a bit biased...
That's just one possible use. Another huge advantage is that it focuses the light, so that a 1 square meter of light can be coated with this cheap stuff, and then it focuses the light to a 1 square cm of silicon or whatever, which is expensive.
Upgrading the phone and cable lines to optical is exactly what we need the -iums for. Silicon is no good as a diode laser (or in some cases, no good as an optical detector), you want something like Indium Gallium Arsenide (InGaAs).
Every printer and copier (manufactured by the big name manufacturers you have heard of) in the world has unique finger printed water marking that identify its serial number, and where it was sold.
The link does not say that at all. It says that by looking at the printing characteristics, you can identify the model of the printer (i.e., just by data that appears in the printed image as a byproduct of the printing process, not by anything intentionally added by the manufacturer). Furthermore, there would be no way of identifying which printer of a certain model made the printed image without having reference pages to compare to.
Don't try that at home kids, Newton was a horrible writer.
[citation needed]
Based on your logic, you obviously wouldn't have a problem with raising people and slaughtering them for food. After all, it's just a chemical reaction.
At this point, you have as much of a responsibility to take care of your father as parents do to take care of their children. And you are apparently failing in that responsibility. Maybe you have tried repeatedly and forcefully (and I'm wrong), but it doesn't sound like it.
Except you have the beach split up in to two different sections. One sections selects a vendor (i.e. primaries) to compete against the other. The people making that selection want a vendor in the center of their beach. So you end up with 1/4 and 3/4 anyway.
Of course what actually happens is as soon as the vendors at 1/4 and 3/4 get picked by their side, they run as fast as they can to the center :). That's better than just a popular vote among two people who started out as nothing more than a set of "principles" taken directly from the very center (imo).
I want to live in a safe Republic, which is perfectly compatible with state secrets :)
So you think it would be a good idea to release the full details on the best, fastest, cheapest way to make the biggest nuclear bomb. And you think that we should release the names, identities, and covers of all of our intelligence agents, including ones that may be undercover in organizations such as Al Qaeda. We should release all military plans in Iraq prior to executing them, and release all security information about our bases there, such as patrol patterns, shift changes, known weaknesses, and even all encryption keys?
I don't see the problem with holding both of those points (although I am personally against the death penalty in most cases). Pro-life because of the belief that life begins at conception, and an innocent life should not be destroyed. Pro-death-penalty because of the belief that some actions warrant such a sentence. Where is the conflict?
What's the practical difference between a government mandated tax and a government mandated raise in basic utility rates that goes to some private corporation that does nothing beneficial to the citizens?
So Delmarva Power will be legally required to buy this electricity, and at the same time will have to pay the cost of the infrastructure to supply the full load of electricity, in case of little/no wind. Since the cost of this infrastructure is generally a bigger cost than the actual electricity itself, they will be forced to raise rates. So the OP is correct, the consumers will be getting screwed by paying higher electricity bills, and this "green" company will make a killing through government mandates.
Pretty much the only relevant factor is the initial energy input. When a cosmic ray or particle collision occurs, it creates a shower of particles, so your idea of single (in cosmic rays) vs. many (in accelerators) high energy particles is not what really happens. It's many high energy particles in either case.
He was, however, supporting terrorism, though it was more or less limited to terrorism in the immediate region.
Be aware that you are advocating ignorance (legally mandated ignorance) over knowledge, because of some insignificant chance that the knowledge can cause harm.
An interesting observation is that imaginary numbers are completely unnecessary (but of course quite useful) for most engineering (e.g., signal processing). It is only in quantum mechanics that imaginary numbers are necessary to describe something physical.
Here's a little thought experiment: You have a chamber on the bottom of the ocean, some compartment of which is filled with H2 and O2, at room temperature and pressure. You burn this, extracting all of the chemical energy in the gas, and change the volume of the compartment while doing it (but not changing the volume of the whole chamber), so that you always have STP conditions in your compartment. You now have room temperature water, which can be ejected from the compartment without any transfer of energy, since water is incompressible.
What you did in the chamber extracts exactly the same amount of energy from the H2 and O2 as you would get on the surface, except you now have extra empty space in your chamber, which can be used to extract energy, since it is under pressure. The point being that splitting the H2 and O2 on the ocean floor would take more energy than you could get out of it at the surface (i.e. this proposal wouldn't work). Cool idea though.
Because the summary is wrong. This "loophole" has been well-known for some time now. It can be compensated for very easily, and in fact is compensated for with current QC implementations.
What the hell do you think a POW camp is?
So exactly which originalist interpretation are you thinking of? When, in the history of our country, have we granted Constitutional rights to the enemy in wartime? I don't believe we put German POWs on trial, or gave them habeas corpus. And doing so did not violate the Constitution then, and it does not violate the Constitution now.