You can partially answer your question just by thinking about what you yourself said. When you look in a mirror, you're using photons to view yourself. If photons were as sensitive to single atom imperfections as you suggest, you'd see bits of features all the way across the room rather than your own face in the mirror. So it should be completely obvious that photons, at least photons of visible light, aren't terribly sensitive to single atom imperfections.
Ahmed: I fear that our plot is finished
Abdul: Oh great imam, why is that?
Ahmed: Those infidels, MI5, are now collecting information form Oyster cards. That will force us to buy travelcards or even full price tickets. As we only have a budget of 10 pounds and thirty seven pence for the entire year we cannot afford to place our instruments of terror at the key locations across London.
Abdul: Oh wise one, you are so right. With the help of Saitan, the imperialist infidels have defeated us with this plan. Now the people of London can live without fear of vengeance for their transgressions.
I was at a supercomputing conference in Oregon a few years back. Michio Kaku was the keynote speaker, talking about his predictions of fundamental limits on various technologies. He started spouting on about some semiconductor limit but as he was speaking there was a bit of a commotion coming from the back. Eventually it was revealed that there was a bunch of guys from some research lab disputing over whether or not to mention their latest work before making an official announcement. You see, they'd already broken Kaku's limit.
What does that have to do with anything? If something can be illegal, then it can be illegal in a country, in a continent, on a plane, in a box, under a table, while in a moving vehicle or while eating ham sandwiches, unless something specific about the law rules that particular situation out.
What does "I would have thought" have to do with anything? Have you actually performed the calculations to work out how much lensing you'd expect to see from atmospheric effects and compare that with gravitational lensing?
> We know very well what shapes distributions of particles form over time with only gravity acting on them and they look a lot like galaxies and very little like sheets and filaments.
No. When we try to predict the large scale distribution of matter using simulations we get filaments.
> What if it isn't dark matter at all? But the Universe actually bending?
But that's exactly how it's being treated by physicists. Here are the very equations that physicists use to described the bending of spacetime by matter, dark or not.
But it's not clear that they can count anything other than fish. Can they tell the difference between 2 and 3 seaweeds? Or 2 and 3 rocks? Or 2 and 3 predators? Or even 3 and 4 'things' (that might be friends, foes or rocks). The whole point of numbers is that they are abstracted from the particular thing being counted. For example, we know that from a young age, human babies notice when the number of objects in a small collection have changed for a wide variety of objects. That's not exactly counting, but at least there's a degree of abstraction.
The best thing is to tell it like it is and not impute notions like 'counting' to fish. Unless you want a headline to generate revenue for your advertising or your bibliometric score...
But they didn't even do this. They can compare two schools of fish, up to 4 fish, to see which is larger. When you say someone can "count to 4" you imply a whole bunch of other skills too. I'm not talking about the kind of metaphysical nonsense that Dijkstra is ruling out. I'm talking about practical, measurable behaviour. By my reckoning, fish are nowhere near able to count. You might as well claim that water can count to 6 because it always forms snowflakes with the correct number of branches.
All matter is made from the same fundamental particles whether it's "living" or "inert". That is until we discover the lifeform field they use on Star Trek.
Zealots twist the world to fit their beliefs and are often bemused when that world doesn't seem to fit the evidence. Here is a prime example. People acting confused wondering why it is that Linux doesn't spread faster. If you didn't live in a fantasy world it'd be so obvious why Linux didn't spread that you wouldn't need to even ask the question. But I'll just get modded down because anyone who actually points out the emperor has no clothes just ends being part of the world that gets twisted out. Linux is a piece of shit.
My favorite is log(262537412640768744)/sqrt(163). It's accurate to about 31 decimal places even though you only need to remember 21 digits in the formula. That's 10 digits for free.
> the capacity/price ratio on these wireless flash-based players is starting to move in the right direction
WTF does that mean? Apple have been shifting these units out the door as fast as they can make them. What previously was "not in the right direction" about that?
> Coercion isn't necessary for government. In fact, it is impossible.
I usually have no time for libertarians, but I think I suddenly find myself more in alignment with them than with you. It seems that to you a situation where the majority decide to support a government that oppresses a minority wouldn't be using coercion. That seems like a form of doublespeak to me. I largely agree with the (libertarian) thesis that governments maintain themselves by force and that they aren't some kind of semi-magical incarnation of the will of the people. I also agree with you (I think) that for a government to exist it requires some complicity from the population so governments aren't as simple as gangs of thugs that rule by brute force. But I don't see how you can claim that coercion is impossible when it is as plain to see around me as the two hands I have in front of me.
I made a logical error. I didn't give actually give an argument that coercion isn't necessary for government. In fact, I think it may be a necessary feature of governments. But the more important point is that coercion isn't a defining feature of government and removing governments (as in Somalia) can easily have the effect of increasing the amount of coercion in people's lives.
Coercion is clearly not what defines government because I can tell the difference between organised criminal organisations and governments (though there are, like with any distinction, borderline cases). Similarly, in a country like Somalia which for a long time recently lacked what you call a "central committee", coercion played a major part in people's lives. So coercion is neither necessary or sufficient to define government.
Governments don't implement arbitrary rules. Almost every government has a lengthy procedure for introducing new rules and even dictators have typically not been free to introduce laws on a whim.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead, walk round with a folder saying "NOT CHILD PORN", and arrest all the people who don't try to take the file. Wow! The power of logic!
You can partially answer your question just by thinking about what you yourself said. When you look in a mirror, you're using photons to view yourself. If photons were as sensitive to single atom imperfections as you suggest, you'd see bits of features all the way across the room rather than your own face in the mirror. So it should be completely obvious that photons, at least photons of visible light, aren't terribly sensitive to single atom imperfections.
Ahmed: I fear that our plot is finished
Abdul: Oh great imam, why is that?
Ahmed: Those infidels, MI5, are now collecting information form Oyster cards. That will force us to buy travelcards or even full price tickets. As we only have a budget of 10 pounds and thirty seven pence for the entire year we cannot afford to place our instruments of terror at the key locations across London.
Abdul: Oh wise one, you are so right. With the help of Saitan, the imperialist infidels have defeated us with this plan. Now the people of London can live without fear of vengeance for their transgressions.
I was at a supercomputing conference in Oregon a few years back. Michio Kaku was the keynote speaker, talking about his predictions of fundamental limits on various technologies. He started spouting on about some semiconductor limit but as he was speaking there was a bit of a commotion coming from the back. Eventually it was revealed that there was a bunch of guys from some research lab disputing over whether or not to mention their latest work before making an official announcement. You see, they'd already broken Kaku's limit.
What does that have to do with anything? If something can be illegal, then it can be illegal in a country, in a continent, on a plane, in a box, under a table, while in a moving vehicle or while eating ham sandwiches, unless something specific about the law rules that particular situation out.
Acer technical support. They go beyond incompetent into the realms of evil.
How do you expect to test a scientific theory unless you can actually calculate some predictions from it?
Uh...what?
FYI : 'Southampton'. One word. One 'h'.
Right. But it's important to show that theory and observation are in agreement here: both give you filaments.
What does "I would have thought" have to do with anything? Have you actually performed the calculations to work out how much lensing you'd expect to see from atmospheric effects and compare that with gravitational lensing?
No. When we try to predict the large scale distribution of matter using simulations we get filaments.
But that's exactly how it's being treated by physicists. Here are the very equations that physicists use to described the bending of spacetime by matter, dark or not.
The best thing is to tell it like it is and not impute notions like 'counting' to fish. Unless you want a headline to generate revenue for your advertising or your bibliometric score...
But they didn't even do this. They can compare two schools of fish, up to 4 fish, to see which is larger. When you say someone can "count to 4" you imply a whole bunch of other skills too. I'm not talking about the kind of metaphysical nonsense that Dijkstra is ruling out. I'm talking about practical, measurable behaviour. By my reckoning, fish are nowhere near able to count. You might as well claim that water can count to 6 because it always forms snowflakes with the correct number of branches.
All matter is made from the same fundamental particles whether it's "living" or "inert". That is until we discover the lifeform field they use on Star Trek.
Zealots twist the world to fit their beliefs and are often bemused when that world doesn't seem to fit the evidence. Here is a prime example. People acting confused wondering why it is that Linux doesn't spread faster. If you didn't live in a fantasy world it'd be so obvious why Linux didn't spread that you wouldn't need to even ask the question. But I'll just get modded down because anyone who actually points out the emperor has no clothes just ends being part of the world that gets twisted out. Linux is a piece of shit.
> you can get up to 500 cm^3 of gas out of every few square inches of metal Dude, could you convert that to cubic rods per square furlong for me?
My favorite is log(262537412640768744)/sqrt(163). It's accurate to about 31 decimal places even though you only need to remember 21 digits in the formula. That's 10 digits for free.
WTF does that mean? Apple have been shifting these units out the door as fast as they can make them. What previously was "not in the right direction" about that?
> Coercion isn't necessary for government. In fact, it is impossible. I usually have no time for libertarians, but I think I suddenly find myself more in alignment with them than with you. It seems that to you a situation where the majority decide to support a government that oppresses a minority wouldn't be using coercion. That seems like a form of doublespeak to me. I largely agree with the (libertarian) thesis that governments maintain themselves by force and that they aren't some kind of semi-magical incarnation of the will of the people. I also agree with you (I think) that for a government to exist it requires some complicity from the population so governments aren't as simple as gangs of thugs that rule by brute force. But I don't see how you can claim that coercion is impossible when it is as plain to see around me as the two hands I have in front of me.
I made a logical error. I didn't give actually give an argument that coercion isn't necessary for government. In fact, I think it may be a necessary feature of governments. But the more important point is that coercion isn't a defining feature of government and removing governments (as in Somalia) can easily have the effect of increasing the amount of coercion in people's lives.
Governments don't implement arbitrary rules. Almost every government has a lengthy procedure for introducing new rules and even dictators have typically not been free to introduce laws on a whim.
Maybe it works like you say in Toytown.
You mean the turning of people into toilets?
...while wearing such a ridiculous hat? Dignified indeed!