I do wonder how this got onto slashdot. I mean, I complain about stuff, I complain about stuff at length, but I'm not about to post an article for a major internet news site to have it posted. But besides that, you may find it useless and annoying, but with the exception of a few really bright lights aimed the wrong way (my computer's subwoofer), they aren't bright enough to be very annoying at night. Then again, I've slept through having Linkin Park playing at moderate to slightly above moderate volume, so maybe I'm just weird.
Nonetheless, these lights tell us about the inner workings. While I am rather annoyed at standby lights, and think that a relay based analog system would be more energy efficient (like to know my ipod should be on, when the switch is moved, it uncovers a bright green painted section (not relay based, but showing how it can still protray information without using up power)). If you REALLY don't like the lights and don't want to waste the power you can open up the machine and either remove the LED (if it is parallel) or replace it with a normal diode or wire. De-soldering or clipping leads is not that hard. Of course it depends on the circuitry which one you have to use, and you have the risk of breaking the machine, but if these lights are so bad that they are that annoying, I guess you have to just annoy the electronic device back.
And for the record, I like my computer desk looking like a cockpit, it just plain looks cool.
Well, I mean that the listed price is what the bill said, $0.002. But since he was quoted $0.00002, just from the verbal contracts, yeah he should only pay $0.72. I'm just saying that $0.002 is unfortunately the listed price.
Well, listening to that was simply painful... however, despite their inability to understand so, they were correct. According to this link: http://www.hp.com/sbso/wireless/MNY50079-VZAccessP ricing-V1b.pdf
The going price is INDEED $0.002. So yeah, it was.002 dollars.
But still, wow... I don't know how they didn't get it. There was only 1 flaw in his explanations, but that flaw should not have affected their understanding. The only problem I see, is that after they multiplied.002 cent/kb, by 30,000 kb (whatever it was), and they come out with 71.## dollars. He should stop there, and say, where did the dollar come from. I know he did it somewhat, but he'd go into complaining about it, saying they forgot the translation. Although they SHOULD have realized that when he complained, since they didn't the first 2 times, he should have just stuck on that part..002 cents/kb times X kb, gives an answer in cent's. therefore the calculator answer of 71.## is 71.## cents. thus 0.71## dollars.
Not to say he didn't do that to the point that any college grad would understand, but the only thing I can think of is trapping them in their own reasoning. You multiply cents per kb, by kb, and what do you get? You say dollar, but that means that means that you multiplied by dollars per kb. Math isn't even the problem there, its their inability to keep track of a unit. Now I have trouble with that on my engineering stuff, but that's Coulomb-seconds per amp-meters or something, you get into multiply numerator and denominator terms it gets all screwy. The best plan would be to explain, you multiply cent's per kilobyte by kilobyte, you get the amount of cents that correspond to your kilobyte usage. So even though 71.## may look like a dollar notation, you have just calculated cents.
What made me wince was the how they respond to the examples. You know the difference between 1 cent and 1 dollar? (immediately) yes. You know the difference between half a cent and half a dollar, or.5 cents and.5 dollars? (immediately) yes. So you see the difference between.002 cents and.002 dollars? (Long pause) No. That's just beyond silly. Same number, different unit, if the units are not equivalent then they MUST be different, irrelevant of whether you understand the number, as long as it is the same.
Sorry... just when I see something like this.... I worry about the human race, that somebody who controls part of a powerful company can't even keep EXAMPLES straight, much less currency.
Addendum:
I read up a bit more on the excitons and quasiparticles. Quasiparticles are abstactions of particles, it seems. They don't actually exist but make calculations much easier, so I calculated what happens with the quasiparticle, and figure out how the rest of the particles around it are affected, as opposed to figuring out what is going on with each individual other particle around it.
That's all well and good, but that is still an abstraction of a particle, not a particle. It's an idea that explains things easier, but never actually proves it itself exists.
This explanation makes a quasiparticle sound like it needs many other particles around it, at least more than 2 for it to be of any use. Thus an polaron makes little since, being ONE electron, and one hole. It doesn't mean a hole exists as any true entity, it just means that the electron is not reacting as we think it should, and thus more study should go into WHY it is acting that way. Not to say we can't use hole's and other quasi-particles to make things easier in calculation, but to say this demi-particle is actual a physical (or even probabilistic) entity, is silly.
I read a bit on the excitons, and it makes some more sense, but it just says that the electron binds with its own hole. It doesn't explain how, it just says that it is attracted to it. The electron isn't attracted to the hole, it is attracted to the proton it just left, leaving said hole. And even IF it somehow is attracted, how does it bind to an abstraction created by itself. And even if THAT was possible, what stops this electron from being ejected, making a hole, binding to it, having that exciton then ejected, making a new hole, binding to it, and repeating until it has nullified all of its energy due to it binding with multiple holes? (It said that the bound state of electron and hole is slightly less energy than the electron).
So in the end, I'm still confused, it seems that a hole and quasi-particles are just abstractions of particles to explain phenomenon in an easier to calculate manner. However other events suggest that these quasi-particles are legitimately particulate, to the point that one can make substances (materials, bound states, whatever, i'm not sure what you cal them) with them, like an exciton. It is either an abstraction, or it is not, yet this being both real and a convinence makes it, in and of itself, a quasi-quasiparticle... as silly as that sounds.
Anyway, so yeah, how does it exist as a demi-particle, both as a mathematical convience that doesn't quite exist, but does in other senses?
Thank you Wass, for the very well thought out, and researched (or at least known from previous study) post about this. I am only a senior at college for a BS in EE, so I definitely don't know everything about it yet. As far as I've been told, holes were just an abstraction of a lack of an electron in the valence band, and used (at best) as a convinience in doing calculations dealing with semi-conductors and the like.
So I understand the first part of your post was backing one of my points, that it is an abstraction to make calculations much easier.
As for the rest, it seems that due to quantum probability waveforms from the surrounding particle, it creates a particle-esque signature of sorts, where the hole is, giving particle-ish properties to the empty space where the hole is? I am also lacking in my quantum physics understanding, only taken the first class in it so far (special relativity to begining quantum mechanics with tunneling and blackbody radiation), so that may be an incorrect assumption, but please clarify if it is, heh.
If my interpretation is correct though, that would make just about every form of matter, at least in solids, have quasi-particles forming all around it due to quantum fluctuations. Granted I can't dispute that, but I would think that having such particles constantly being created in all solids (and probably to a lesser extent gasses and liquids, at least for hole-esque quasi-particles) would have had a lot more obvious implications or interactions seen on a daily basis.
But I digress, thank you for explaining why people think/say holes are particle-ish, as opposed to my colegues here that just say, "They move and have charge" without backing it up.
I am getting so sick of hearing people talk about a hole as if it was a particle. A hole, at least in the semiconductor sense, is where an electron should be in a valence crystaline lattice (I know I'm saying it badly, but if you know what I'm talking about, you'll know what I meant).
So this "Polarion" is said to be an electron-hole pair. You know what an electron + a lack of an electron is? AN ELECTRON. Oy.... Every time I bring this up, some other EE (yes, I am an EE) always says that, yes a hole can move and has a positive charge... No... an electron moves, causing a hole to appear somewhere. A hole has no charge, thus 1e difference from an electron. If it had the +1e everbody keeps saying, then it would be a 2e differnce between. And anyway, why talk about it having charge? It doesn't exist, therefore it cannot have charge.
Many may think I'm crazy, but a hole doesn't exist. It's very concept even being possible, because of something NOT being where it is said to be. It's existence is based off of something not existing (in the right place), I guess.
But yeah, is there some special property of holes that make them a particle that everybody keeps talking about? I just don't understand how they call something an electron-hole pair, and say that it isn't just an electron.
Not only is it cool, Basil's voice is Tony Jay! Freaking Megabyte from Reboot!
(or at least that's how it sounds)
Sry for the fanboy thing, just... so freakign cool, now if only they had Megs as the avatar too, he was always trying to take over mainframe, taking over a house isn't a bad start. Make the Mirror look like a vid-window too, heh.
I as well was wondering this. They reference this "film" repeatedly, and no film is shown on there, nor a link to it. FINALLY somebody that notices these things too. I'm usually the only one to see such greivous errors as mentioning a film yet not having one.
Lucky for you, I'm bored at work and have access to google's translation tools. It found a part of the university that did this, and it linked to a place that DOES have films:
Re:Why must everything paranormal be considered cr
on
Virtual Worlds and ESP
·
· Score: 1
And it all got jumbled togther... wow... come on, if I hit [enter], I at least expect that to be listened to... didn't think I'd need to preview for something that has been in use in word processing programs since 1985. I assure you there is spacing between the different subjects.
Why must everything paranormal be considered crazy
on
Virtual Worlds and ESP
·
· Score: 1
Alright, by reading this backlash, I am appalled at some of the reactions I saw. The one most annoying was the telepathy vs invisible pink unicorns. Firstly, due to the way it was written (copied from the parent post with replacing "telepathy" with the unicorns, the sentences are either gramatically incorrect, or just plain don't make sense. Secondly though, is the simply that the parent thread is well thought through, and instead of pointing our problems with it, the unicorn breeder there just satires it. This harkens back to a saying I've heard before, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Granted, the human mind isn't tech in the strictest sense, but it still follows similar properties that keep the analogy valid.
Secondly, the one that fought the idea of the electron entanglement, blaming the uncertainty principle. If you measure the electron, you can affect the results. Does this make the results wrong? NO! Uncertain does not mean wrong, just uncertain. If you measure it, and it affects it, with 2 possible outcomes, probability ITSELF dictactes that half of the trials will come out as the spin should've been read, and half won't. We can't differentiate which is wrong, just that the reading isn't valid due to the fact we've changed it. Does that mean no information is being transfered? No, just no decently readable information. But in this case, if we change its spin, and scan the other one, to see if it changed, and 100% of the scans say, "the spin has changed", that's one heck of an uncertainty. If the chance of a different answer is less than 10%, when it should be 50%, then it isn't exactly all that uncertain, is it?
Anyway, as for original information in the post, why do people think UFOs, telepathy, and bigfoot don't exist? Am I going to back up their sure existence? Of course not, but the fact that people insult it to the point that if it is deemed "paranormal" it can't be true, needs to addressed. UFOs, well, if you believe in evolution, WE evolved here, what is to say some other race on some other planet didn't do the same? If your religious (well, in this case Christian, I don't know the Genesis of most other religions very well), as much as it is a stretch, the Bible NEVER says that he did this only once, or on one planet. Just as much as the word used for "day" actually translates closer to the day used in the phrase, "Back in the day...", notice that the E, at least in the NIV is not capitalized in earth. Earth without a capital simply means, dirt. For all we know, the garden of Eden wasn't even on the Earth we know of, since we've never found a trace of it (or the Ark for that matter, but that's another story), it could have been somewhere else in the universe, and being kicked out just sent us to the planet we currently know of as Earth, but other beings maybe sent elswhere. I mean, like when Cain was banished, he was sent somewhere called Nod or something... but Adam and Eve should've been the only people in existance, so the only civilized area should've been... well, their house. But anyway, that's another argument entirely. Who says the creation of aliens, divine or not, had to happen before or after us? They could've done it a few thousand years ago, and their technology is advanced enough to be used to make what we see as flying saucers? We aren't too far from making our own, only another hundred years or so until we can do something similar, I would think. Bigfoot, well, I don't find much credibility in it, but I say, the sheer fact that we have found lifeforms on this planet that we didn't think exist, just because we HAVEN'T looked everywhere, proves that he MIGHT exist (or might just be some deranged circus freak hermit or something). Just think of some of the animals and plants in remote rainforests, or the ocean floor.
But the main one here is telepathy. Now, I have with me this device, a wonderous thing we call the "cellular phone." Now this device causes electrons to move along a piece of metal in such a way to creat s
Anime also often animates at a very low framerate that many american animators would regard as intolerable.
Now, I might be mistaken, but last time I checked, anime was animated in 24fps, which is film framerate. As in, the same framerate one sees at non-IMAX movie theatres. If you want to call movie theatre's framerate intollerable, that's fine by me, but just telling you.
Slashdot Mirror
I do wonder how this got onto slashdot. I mean, I complain about stuff, I complain about stuff at length, but I'm not about to post an article for a major internet news site to have it posted. But besides that, you may find it useless and annoying, but with the exception of a few really bright lights aimed the wrong way (my computer's subwoofer), they aren't bright enough to be very annoying at night. Then again, I've slept through having Linkin Park playing at moderate to slightly above moderate volume, so maybe I'm just weird.
Nonetheless, these lights tell us about the inner workings. While I am rather annoyed at standby lights, and think that a relay based analog system would be more energy efficient (like to know my ipod should be on, when the switch is moved, it uncovers a bright green painted section (not relay based, but showing how it can still protray information without using up power)). If you REALLY don't like the lights and don't want to waste the power you can open up the machine and either remove the LED (if it is parallel) or replace it with a normal diode or wire. De-soldering or clipping leads is not that hard. Of course it depends on the circuitry which one you have to use, and you have the risk of breaking the machine, but if these lights are so bad that they are that annoying, I guess you have to just annoy the electronic device back.
And for the record, I like my computer desk looking like a cockpit, it just plain looks cool.
Well, I mean that the listed price is what the bill said, $0.002. But since he was quoted $0.00002, just from the verbal contracts, yeah he should only pay $0.72. I'm just saying that $0.002 is unfortunately the listed price.
Well, listening to that was simply painful... however, despite their inability to understand so, they were correct. According to this link: http://www.hp.com/sbso/wireless/MNY50079-VZAccessP ricing-V1b.pdf
.002 dollars.
.002 cent/kb, by 30,000 kb (whatever it was), and they come out with 71.## dollars. He should stop there, and say, where did the dollar come from. I know he did it somewhat, but he'd go into complaining about it, saying they forgot the translation. Although they SHOULD have realized that when he complained, since they didn't the first 2 times, he should have just stuck on that part. .002 cents/kb times X kb, gives an answer in cent's. therefore the calculator answer of 71.## is 71.## cents. thus 0.71## dollars.
.5 cents and .5 dollars? (immediately) yes. So you see the difference between .002 cents and .002 dollars? (Long pause) No. That's just beyond silly. Same number, different unit, if the units are not equivalent then they MUST be different, irrelevant of whether you understand the number, as long as it is the same.
The going price is INDEED $0.002. So yeah, it was
But still, wow... I don't know how they didn't get it. There was only 1 flaw in his explanations, but that flaw should not have affected their understanding. The only problem I see, is that after they multiplied
Not to say he didn't do that to the point that any college grad would understand, but the only thing I can think of is trapping them in their own reasoning. You multiply cents per kb, by kb, and what do you get? You say dollar, but that means that means that you multiplied by dollars per kb. Math isn't even the problem there, its their inability to keep track of a unit. Now I have trouble with that on my engineering stuff, but that's Coulomb-seconds per amp-meters or something, you get into multiply numerator and denominator terms it gets all screwy. The best plan would be to explain, you multiply cent's per kilobyte by kilobyte, you get the amount of cents that correspond to your kilobyte usage. So even though 71.## may look like a dollar notation, you have just calculated cents.
What made me wince was the how they respond to the examples. You know the difference between 1 cent and 1 dollar? (immediately) yes. You know the difference between half a cent and half a dollar, or
Sorry... just when I see something like this.... I worry about the human race, that somebody who controls part of a powerful company can't even keep EXAMPLES straight, much less currency.
Addendum:
I read up a bit more on the excitons and quasiparticles. Quasiparticles are abstactions of particles, it seems. They don't actually exist but make calculations much easier, so I calculated what happens with the quasiparticle, and figure out how the rest of the particles around it are affected, as opposed to figuring out what is going on with each individual other particle around it.
That's all well and good, but that is still an abstraction of a particle, not a particle. It's an idea that explains things easier, but never actually proves it itself exists.
This explanation makes a quasiparticle sound like it needs many other particles around it, at least more than 2 for it to be of any use. Thus an polaron makes little since, being ONE electron, and one hole. It doesn't mean a hole exists as any true entity, it just means that the electron is not reacting as we think it should, and thus more study should go into WHY it is acting that way. Not to say we can't use hole's and other quasi-particles to make things easier in calculation, but to say this demi-particle is actual a physical (or even probabilistic) entity, is silly.
I read a bit on the excitons, and it makes some more sense, but it just says that the electron binds with its own hole. It doesn't explain how, it just says that it is attracted to it. The electron isn't attracted to the hole, it is attracted to the proton it just left, leaving said hole. And even IF it somehow is attracted, how does it bind to an abstraction created by itself. And even if THAT was possible, what stops this electron from being ejected, making a hole, binding to it, having that exciton then ejected, making a new hole, binding to it, and repeating until it has nullified all of its energy due to it binding with multiple holes? (It said that the bound state of electron and hole is slightly less energy than the electron).
So in the end, I'm still confused, it seems that a hole and quasi-particles are just abstractions of particles to explain phenomenon in an easier to calculate manner. However other events suggest that these quasi-particles are legitimately particulate, to the point that one can make substances (materials, bound states, whatever, i'm not sure what you cal them) with them, like an exciton. It is either an abstraction, or it is not, yet this being both real and a convinence makes it, in and of itself, a quasi-quasiparticle... as silly as that sounds.
Anyway, so yeah, how does it exist as a demi-particle, both as a mathematical convience that doesn't quite exist, but does in other senses?
Thank you Wass, for the very well thought out, and researched (or at least known from previous study) post about this. I am only a senior at college for a BS in EE, so I definitely don't know everything about it yet. As far as I've been told, holes were just an abstraction of a lack of an electron in the valence band, and used (at best) as a convinience in doing calculations dealing with semi-conductors and the like.
So I understand the first part of your post was backing one of my points, that it is an abstraction to make calculations much easier.
As for the rest, it seems that due to quantum probability waveforms from the surrounding particle, it creates a particle-esque signature of sorts, where the hole is, giving particle-ish properties to the empty space where the hole is? I am also lacking in my quantum physics understanding, only taken the first class in it so far (special relativity to begining quantum mechanics with tunneling and blackbody radiation), so that may be an incorrect assumption, but please clarify if it is, heh.
If my interpretation is correct though, that would make just about every form of matter, at least in solids, have quasi-particles forming all around it due to quantum fluctuations. Granted I can't dispute that, but I would think that having such particles constantly being created in all solids (and probably to a lesser extent gasses and liquids, at least for hole-esque quasi-particles) would have had a lot more obvious implications or interactions seen on a daily basis.
But I digress, thank you for explaining why people think/say holes are particle-ish, as opposed to my colegues here that just say, "They move and have charge" without backing it up.
I am getting so sick of hearing people talk about a hole as if it was a particle. A hole, at least in the semiconductor sense, is where an electron should be in a valence crystaline lattice (I know I'm saying it badly, but if you know what I'm talking about, you'll know what I meant).
So this "Polarion" is said to be an electron-hole pair. You know what an electron + a lack of an electron is? AN ELECTRON. Oy.... Every time I bring this up, some other EE (yes, I am an EE) always says that, yes a hole can move and has a positive charge... No... an electron moves, causing a hole to appear somewhere. A hole has no charge, thus 1e difference from an electron. If it had the +1e everbody keeps saying, then it would be a 2e differnce between. And anyway, why talk about it having charge? It doesn't exist, therefore it cannot have charge.
Many may think I'm crazy, but a hole doesn't exist. It's very concept even being possible, because of something NOT being where it is said to be. It's existence is based off of something not existing (in the right place), I guess.
But yeah, is there some special property of holes that make them a particle that everybody keeps talking about? I just don't understand how they call something an electron-hole pair, and say that it isn't just an electron.
Not only is it cool, Basil's voice is Tony Jay! Freaking Megabyte from Reboot!
(or at least that's how it sounds)
Sry for the fanboy thing, just... so freakign cool, now if only they had Megs as the avatar too, he was always trying to take over mainframe, taking over a house isn't a bad start. Make the Mirror look like a vid-window too, heh.
I as well was wondering this. They reference this "film" repeatedly, and no film is shown on there, nor a link to it. FINALLY somebody that notices these things too. I'm usually the only one to see such greivous errors as mentioning a film yet not having one.
X -11-25-3498
n en/2003/455.html
Lucky for you, I'm bored at work and have access to google's translation tools. It found a part of the university that did this, and it linked to a place that DOES have films:
Film: http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPE
Just for reference, it was linked form here:
http://www.uni-bonn.de/Aktuelles/Presseinformatio
And it all got jumbled togther... wow... come on, if I hit [enter], I at least expect that to be listened to... didn't think I'd need to preview for something that has been in use in word processing programs since 1985. I assure you there is spacing between the different subjects.
Alright, by reading this backlash, I am appalled at some of the reactions I saw. The one most annoying was the telepathy vs invisible pink unicorns. Firstly, due to the way it was written (copied from the parent post with replacing "telepathy" with the unicorns, the sentences are either gramatically incorrect, or just plain don't make sense. Secondly though, is the simply that the parent thread is well thought through, and instead of pointing our problems with it, the unicorn breeder there just satires it. This harkens back to a saying I've heard before, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Granted, the human mind isn't tech in the strictest sense, but it still follows similar properties that keep the analogy valid. Secondly, the one that fought the idea of the electron entanglement, blaming the uncertainty principle. If you measure the electron, you can affect the results. Does this make the results wrong? NO! Uncertain does not mean wrong, just uncertain. If you measure it, and it affects it, with 2 possible outcomes, probability ITSELF dictactes that half of the trials will come out as the spin should've been read, and half won't. We can't differentiate which is wrong, just that the reading isn't valid due to the fact we've changed it. Does that mean no information is being transfered? No, just no decently readable information. But in this case, if we change its spin, and scan the other one, to see if it changed, and 100% of the scans say, "the spin has changed", that's one heck of an uncertainty. If the chance of a different answer is less than 10%, when it should be 50%, then it isn't exactly all that uncertain, is it? Anyway, as for original information in the post, why do people think UFOs, telepathy, and bigfoot don't exist? Am I going to back up their sure existence? Of course not, but the fact that people insult it to the point that if it is deemed "paranormal" it can't be true, needs to addressed. UFOs, well, if you believe in evolution, WE evolved here, what is to say some other race on some other planet didn't do the same? If your religious (well, in this case Christian, I don't know the Genesis of most other religions very well), as much as it is a stretch, the Bible NEVER says that he did this only once, or on one planet. Just as much as the word used for "day" actually translates closer to the day used in the phrase, "Back in the day...", notice that the E, at least in the NIV is not capitalized in earth. Earth without a capital simply means, dirt. For all we know, the garden of Eden wasn't even on the Earth we know of, since we've never found a trace of it (or the Ark for that matter, but that's another story), it could have been somewhere else in the universe, and being kicked out just sent us to the planet we currently know of as Earth, but other beings maybe sent elswhere. I mean, like when Cain was banished, he was sent somewhere called Nod or something... but Adam and Eve should've been the only people in existance, so the only civilized area should've been... well, their house. But anyway, that's another argument entirely. Who says the creation of aliens, divine or not, had to happen before or after us? They could've done it a few thousand years ago, and their technology is advanced enough to be used to make what we see as flying saucers? We aren't too far from making our own, only another hundred years or so until we can do something similar, I would think. Bigfoot, well, I don't find much credibility in it, but I say, the sheer fact that we have found lifeforms on this planet that we didn't think exist, just because we HAVEN'T looked everywhere, proves that he MIGHT exist (or might just be some deranged circus freak hermit or something). Just think of some of the animals and plants in remote rainforests, or the ocean floor. But the main one here is telepathy. Now, I have with me this device, a wonderous thing we call the "cellular phone." Now this device causes electrons to move along a piece of metal in such a way to creat s
Anime also often animates at a very low framerate that many american animators would regard as intolerable. Now, I might be mistaken, but last time I checked, anime was animated in 24fps, which is film framerate. As in, the same framerate one sees at non-IMAX movie theatres. If you want to call movie theatre's framerate intollerable, that's fine by me, but just telling you.