Sexual Assault on a Child (because he DID exactly what the law defines - to intentionally touch a child's groin area)
I'm a little confused here. Does this mean that when I have little kids I'm not allowed to give them baths? Isn't there some question of intent in there? It sounds like something's missing.
My all-girls high school blocked it's own homepage for a while for the phrase "single-sex education." The solution they chose? Rephrasing to "single-gender education." That didn't solve the problem of not being able to search for photos of Michelangelo's David.
If you go to LA you should take a peak at the Getty museum. It doesn't have a huge collection yet, but the architecture is amazing, and the view of LA is unbeatable. The parking is miserable though. Pasadena also has some nice old-style theaters that are off the beaten path, but I hear worth a gander.
And so far as science museums go, I've always been partial to the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry - though the last time I went was a while ago. They have a German U-boat outside though, which is kinda fun. The Smithsonian is a must.
On another architecture note, if you pass through Dallas I'd see the Meyerson symphony center. It was designed by I.M. Pei, and has great sound if you like concerts with your buildings.
Other good stuff in Texas is McDonald's observatory in West Texas somewhere. Also nearby that is the Marfa lights, if you like unexplained phenomena. And if you like geology stuff, on the border between New Mexico and Texas is Carlsbad Caverns, a huge set of caves making up this monstrous national park. And for something particularly nerdy you can pass by the failed Texas supercollider. I don't think there's much there to see though; I'd much more recommend SLAC (outside Palo Alto, CA).
And if you happen to be in eastern Texas, then you have to see Austin, too, because it's kinda like a small, Texan version of San Fransisco - or at least we like to think so, but it really is a fun tech city with lots to do, particularly for outdoorsy people (think monstrous hilly parks with spring fed creeks with bathing holes etc).
You're totally right. I was remembering something from stat mech completely wrong without thinking about it. I just worked through it to check (with just some numbers from gold), and got that the electrons contribute about 10^7 J/m^3 to the bulk modulus.
They quote some experimental bulk moduli of metals on this webpage as about 10^10 erg/cm^3 (10^9 J/m^3). So it isn't a miniscule contribution from the electrons, but doesn't get anywhere near the total. Thanks for making me check my facts.
And it'd be pretty sweet to observe a quark star, aside from just proving that they exist. I'm sure they've got some interesting stuff going on in them.
On/. we take the piss out of normal people that get duped by fake UI's
Hehe, lemme guess, you're British right?
Sorry, I'm just excited because I recently learned that phrase. I've got to go hoover the carpet now, and then revise for my exam. See, I'm almost fluent in English now.
My high school physics teacher had a coffee mug from this set. The fiestaware orange ones were orange from some uranium glaze I think. Smart.
In his first radiation lecture he would pull the sucker out of storage for his coffee that day. He'd bring out the geiger counter and explain how it worked etc. and start writing stuff on the board while it ticked away background radiation. Then he'd casually take a sip from his mug and then set it back down next to the geiger counter, which proceeded to go mad. He'd just turn back to the board as if he didn't notice while the whole class stared wide-eyed at his radioactive coffee.
My problem with the Libertarians is that they aren't just libertarian (meaning that they advocate the opposite of authoritarianism - keep the government out of as much as possible), but that they had to decide to be right economically, too. Why isn't there a party for me, a moderate-left libertarian? I think more Americans should be educated on what the political choices are - ie that there should be more than two choices because its more complicated than left and right. Check this out to see what I mean. I'm Economic Left/Right: -3.62, Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28, out there next to the Dalai Lama. He's so cool.
Might have just been a change in how useful copyright was percieved. Like I know that studios didn't even bother to register a large number of pre 50's movies with the copyright office (which is why you can buy any number of crappy versions of It's a Wonderful Life, and why tv stations love to play it at christmas - it's free). I guess it took them a while to realize that protecting those copyrights were in their best interest, an idea that they certainly cling to desperately now...
That kinda brings into question all the analysis up to that point though. If only a small set of people viewed registering copyright as useful, then the number of registrations isn't a good measure of the number of works created.
And I love Mozilla. I didn't even know there were popups and Gator all over the place until I read the complaints. Suckas!
I really disklike the apparently quick switch from pro-life to pro-choice (I suppose to make himself a more viable Dem candidate). That and civil liberties are my key voting points, so I'm not going to fall for a candidate who isn't solid on them, even if he does (oh the shock!) know how to use a weblog.
The problem with social security in America is that it's going down the shitter because not enough money is going in compared to out - and people still don't get a whole heck of a lot to live off of. We're hitting the real stress point for the system with the baby boomer generation, and bankruptcy of social security in the future is a real possibility
The result is that everyone my age (20s) is resigned to the fact that we will most likely get no social security later unless the system gets reformed now. It's quite depressing to see that money taken out of your paycheck knowing that you won't see any of it later.
I have the distinct feeling that now that people about my age are getting paychecks, we're going to start to see a real push for ss reform. Unfortunately we have to push back against the baby boomers, who just want their money now.
I'm quite impressed by social security in Europe, by the way (I'm in Germany right now), though there's still some kinks I've heard about like high taxes and lack of incentive for real solvency in the health insurance companies. I'd feel better about those problems than about the situation in America now.
I personally 1) like being pointed to interesting articles anywhere they appear, which they happen to quite often in the new york times, 2) think that it's wrong for slashdot to circumvent another news agency's policy - and a rather painless one, really - simply for 'user convience' and 3) would never use such an option (see 1), but you're free to email an editor about it.
I recommend a good simple relativity textbook or a class. I'm not really sure anything that anyone can say on slashdot will sufficiently convince anyone else that the E=mc^2 that is thrown around so liberally is an incomplete picture. All I can say is the post above quoting the equation E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 is the correct one.
I'd highly recommend Helliwell's Relativity, though I think it's only sold through the Claremont colleges bookstore, so I doubt that's very helpfull. Beyond that, I Feynman's lectures have a good section on it, and can usually be picked up used. Other than that, the Schaum's outline series is really good for more advanced stuff, so I bet their intro books are very readable, too, though not as detailed as full texts on the subject. Looks like they don't have a special volume devoted to it, but their College Physics volume has one chapter on it.
Thank you for your revelation. You should inform the Nobel commitee so they can take back Chandrasekar's prize.
Yes, indeed, a fusion reaction does emit light, and not photons. That's why I pointed out the difference between radiation pressure and degeneracy pressure, which keeps at least white dwarfs, neutron stars, and, in theory, quark stars from collapsing. You can test electron degeneracy pressure in everday life by trying to compress a metal. Yep, that's what pushes back on you. If you don't believe me, try this link on for size. Notice specifically this part:
Now the star begins to cool and to shrink. It is stopped by the pressure of electrons. Since the pressure from the electrons grows faster than the pressure of gravity, the star will stay at about earth size even when it cools.
So there's still something holding that star up after fusion and radiation emission stops. And yes, fermion degeneracy pressure is that strong.
A supernova is really just a switchover phase for the star from being supported by electron to neutron pressure. Stars supported by photon pressure do not exist so far as I know. I would guess that any body sufficiently light that photons could compensate for gravity are too light to radiate in the first place. Electron pressure and neutron pressure work so well because they're both spin 1/2 particles, which resist compression much more strongly than bosons like photons (photons actually like being in the same state with other bosons, which is how Bose-Einstein condensates are formed. In contrast fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle and can thus exert a degeneracy pressure) The photon pressure talked about with solar sails is different than degeneracy pressure, which is really a response to being compressed.
Stars up to 1.44 times the mass of the sun (calculated first by Chandrasekar, a really nifty guy who wasn't believed at all at the time) are supported by electron pressure. When that star gets too big, a big supernova results, electrons and protons in the star fuse into neutrons in the biggest atom ever, a neutron star, which I think has a mass-limit of three times the mass of the sun before it becomes a black hole (in theory).
What I'm really impressed with is the German post. When I order something from amazon.de, I get it in usually 1, maybe 2 days. My prof's mail corrected work back sometimes, and it gets there the next day. Where I live in the US at least, the minimum is 2 days to get a letter - from anywhere. Next day on a standard letter astounds me.
Clearly the lawsuit was withdrawn because of your brave protest. I salute you. If only more of us would selflessly buy packages of oreos, we might suffer from fewer pointless sco-like lawsuits. Based on your example, I'm buying one myself as soon as possible.
I'm not really sure why the revised the policy. From the article:
...1923 ruling known as Frye, which held that the methods used by the expert in forming his scientific conclusions must be generally accepted within the expert community. Critics of Frye argued that it often excluded new but legitimate science that had not yet gained a consensus within the scientific community.
This is the way that actual science works. Peer review. Lots of it, for a long time before every scientist starts believing in a result. There's a reason new methods are excluded, and it's because to scientists they aren't fully proven yet. I'm not really sure why they had to change this policy, or even the practical effects that this change had, aside from reading a few cases where perfectly acceptable sounding DNA evidence was excluded by a judge based on technicalities (one of the many things that makes it very difficult to prosecute a rape case). Perhaps the problem comes with the fact that so many conditions gives a judge too much wriggle room. The Fyre condition sounds pretty clear and simple in comparison to a four point checklist. And the new conditions don't open up the new sciences any more than the Fyre condition, so there must have been a different motivation.
Slashdot Mirror
Sexual Assault on a Child (because he DID exactly what the law defines - to intentionally touch a child's groin area)
I'm a little confused here. Does this mean that when I have little kids I'm not allowed to give them baths? Isn't there some question of intent in there? It sounds like something's missing.
My all-girls high school blocked it's own homepage for a while for the phrase "single-sex education." The solution they chose? Rephrasing to "single-gender education." That didn't solve the problem of not being able to search for photos of Michelangelo's David.
and then another 50 remixed until he's coming out with more albums than live artists.
Yeah, so long as you already got your marriage license, which they did before he left, then you can get married over the telephone in Texas.
I second this suggestion. I particularly like the cheesy little cardboard cutouts of astronauts at the bottom of it. He he he.
If you go to LA you should take a peak at the Getty museum. It doesn't have a huge collection yet, but the architecture is amazing, and the view of LA is unbeatable. The parking is miserable though. Pasadena also has some nice old-style theaters that are off the beaten path, but I hear worth a gander.
And so far as science museums go, I've always been partial to the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry - though the last time I went was a while ago. They have a German U-boat outside though, which is kinda fun. The Smithsonian is a must.
On another architecture note, if you pass through Dallas I'd see the Meyerson symphony center. It was designed by I.M. Pei, and has great sound if you like concerts with your buildings.
Other good stuff in Texas is McDonald's observatory in West Texas somewhere. Also nearby that is the Marfa lights, if you like unexplained phenomena. And if you like geology stuff, on the border between New Mexico and Texas is Carlsbad Caverns, a huge set of caves making up this monstrous national park. And for something particularly nerdy you can pass by the failed Texas supercollider. I don't think there's much there to see though; I'd much more recommend SLAC (outside Palo Alto, CA).
And if you happen to be in eastern Texas, then you have to see Austin, too, because it's kinda like a small, Texan version of San Fransisco - or at least we like to think so, but it really is a fun tech city with lots to do, particularly for outdoorsy people (think monstrous hilly parks with spring fed creeks with bathing holes etc).
Is that where you can see the shuttles land? I saw a friend's pictures of that, and I so want to see that sometime.
You're totally right. I was remembering something from stat mech completely wrong without thinking about it. I just worked through it to check (with just some numbers from gold), and got that the electrons contribute about 10^7 J/m^3 to the bulk modulus.
They quote some experimental bulk moduli of metals on this webpage as about 10^10 erg/cm^3 (10^9 J/m^3). So it isn't a miniscule contribution from the electrons, but doesn't get anywhere near the total. Thanks for making me check my facts.
And it'd be pretty sweet to observe a quark star, aside from just proving that they exist. I'm sure they've got some interesting stuff going on in them.
On /. we take the piss out of normal people that get duped by fake UI's
Hehe, lemme guess, you're British right?
Sorry, I'm just excited because I recently learned that phrase. I've got to go hoover the carpet now, and then revise for my exam. See, I'm almost fluent in English now.
My high school physics teacher had a coffee mug from this set. The fiestaware orange ones were orange from some uranium glaze I think. Smart.
In his first radiation lecture he would pull the sucker out of storage for his coffee that day. He'd bring out the geiger counter and explain how it worked etc. and start writing stuff on the board while it ticked away background radiation. Then he'd casually take a sip from his mug and then set it back down next to the geiger counter, which proceeded to go mad. He'd just turn back to the board as if he didn't notice while the whole class stared wide-eyed at his radioactive coffee.
My problem with the Libertarians is that they aren't just libertarian (meaning that they advocate the opposite of authoritarianism - keep the government out of as much as possible), but that they had to decide to be right economically, too. Why isn't there a party for me, a moderate-left libertarian? I think more Americans should be educated on what the political choices are - ie that there should be more than two choices because its more complicated than left and right.
Check this out to see what I mean. I'm Economic Left/Right: -3.62, Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28, out there next to the Dalai Lama. He's so cool.
Might have just been a change in how useful copyright was percieved. Like I know that studios didn't even bother to register a large number of pre 50's movies with the copyright office (which is why you can buy any number of crappy versions of It's a Wonderful Life, and why tv stations love to play it at christmas - it's free). I guess it took them a while to realize that protecting those copyrights were in their best interest, an idea that they certainly cling to desperately now...
That kinda brings into question all the analysis up to that point though. If only a small set of people viewed registering copyright as useful, then the number of registrations isn't a good measure of the number of works created.
And I love Mozilla. I didn't even know there were popups and Gator all over the place until I read the complaints. Suckas!
I really disklike the apparently quick switch from pro-life to pro-choice (I suppose to make himself a more viable Dem candidate). That and civil liberties are my key voting points, so I'm not going to fall for a candidate who isn't solid on them, even if he does (oh the shock!) know how to use a weblog.
The problem with social security in America is that it's going down the shitter because not enough money is going in compared to out - and people still don't get a whole heck of a lot to live off of. We're hitting the real stress point for the system with the baby boomer generation, and bankruptcy of social security in the future is a real possibility
The result is that everyone my age (20s) is resigned to the fact that we will most likely get no social security later unless the system gets reformed now. It's quite depressing to see that money taken out of your paycheck knowing that you won't see any of it later.
I have the distinct feeling that now that people about my age are getting paychecks, we're going to start to see a real push for ss reform. Unfortunately we have to push back against the baby boomers, who just want their money now.
I'm quite impressed by social security in Europe, by the way (I'm in Germany right now), though there's still some kinks I've heard about like high taxes and lack of incentive for real solvency in the health insurance companies. I'd feel better about those problems than about the situation in America now.
Hey, stop your bitching.
I personally 1) like being pointed to interesting articles anywhere they appear, which they happen to quite often in the new york times, 2) think that it's wrong for slashdot to circumvent another news agency's policy - and a rather painless one, really - simply for 'user convience' and 3) would never use such an option (see 1), but you're free to email an editor about it.
And now we are given further, though unnecessary proof, that babelfish absolutely cannot translate anything readably.
Yeah, a brand appeared in stores in Texas at least four years ago.
I'll do it, but I don't need a t-shirt and $25. Just postage will do. Email: lfisher at hmc.edu
I recommend a good simple relativity textbook or a class. I'm not really sure anything that anyone can say on slashdot will sufficiently convince anyone else that the E=mc^2 that is thrown around so liberally is an incomplete picture. All I can say is the post above quoting the equation E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 is the correct one.
I'd highly recommend Helliwell's Relativity, though I think it's only sold through the Claremont colleges bookstore, so I doubt that's very helpfull. Beyond that, I Feynman's lectures have a good section on it, and can usually be picked up used. Other than that, the Schaum's outline series is really good for more advanced stuff, so I bet their intro books are very readable, too, though not as detailed as full texts on the subject. Looks like they don't have a special volume devoted to it, but their College Physics volume has one chapter on it.
Thank you for your revelation. You should inform the Nobel commitee so they can take back Chandrasekar's prize.
Yes, indeed, a fusion reaction does emit light, and not photons. That's why I pointed out the difference between radiation pressure and degeneracy pressure, which keeps at least white dwarfs, neutron stars, and, in theory, quark stars from collapsing. You can test electron degeneracy pressure in everday life by trying to compress a metal. Yep, that's what pushes back on you. If you don't believe me, try this link on for size. Notice specifically this part:
Now the star begins to cool and to shrink. It is stopped by the pressure of electrons. Since the pressure from the electrons grows faster than the pressure of gravity, the star will stay at about earth size even when it cools.
So there's still something holding that star up after fusion and radiation emission stops. And yes, fermion degeneracy pressure is that strong.
A supernova is really just a switchover phase for the star from being supported by electron to neutron pressure. Stars supported by photon pressure do not exist so far as I know. I would guess that any body sufficiently light that photons could compensate for gravity are too light to radiate in the first place. Electron pressure and neutron pressure work so well because they're both spin 1/2 particles, which resist compression much more strongly than bosons like photons (photons actually like being in the same state with other bosons, which is how Bose-Einstein condensates are formed. In contrast fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle and can thus exert a degeneracy pressure) The photon pressure talked about with solar sails is different than degeneracy pressure, which is really a response to being compressed.
Stars up to 1.44 times the mass of the sun (calculated first by Chandrasekar, a really nifty guy who wasn't believed at all at the time) are supported by electron pressure. When that star gets too big, a big supernova results, electrons and protons in the star fuse into neutrons in the biggest atom ever, a neutron star, which I think has a mass-limit of three times the mass of the sun before it becomes a black hole (in theory).
What I'm really impressed with is the German post. When I order something from amazon.de, I get it in usually 1, maybe 2 days. My prof's mail corrected work back sometimes, and it gets there the next day. Where I live in the US at least, the minimum is 2 days to get a letter - from anywhere. Next day on a standard letter astounds me.
Shouldn't you be out Einsteining something?
Ah yes, all physicists spend all their free time working on string theory and finding Riemann surfaces. Can't keep us away from it with a stick!
Don't feed the trolls.
Clearly the lawsuit was withdrawn because of your brave protest. I salute you. If only more of us would selflessly buy packages of oreos, we might suffer from fewer pointless sco-like lawsuits. Based on your example, I'm buying one myself as soon as possible.
Do I get extra points for mentioning SCO?
I'm not really sure why the revised the policy. From the article:
...1923 ruling known as Frye, which held that the methods used by the expert in forming his scientific conclusions must be generally accepted within the expert community. Critics of Frye argued that it often excluded new but legitimate science that had not yet gained a consensus within the scientific community.
This is the way that actual science works. Peer review. Lots of it, for a long time before every scientist starts believing in a result. There's a reason new methods are excluded, and it's because to scientists they aren't fully proven yet. I'm not really sure why they had to change this policy, or even the practical effects that this change had, aside from reading a few cases where perfectly acceptable sounding DNA evidence was excluded by a judge based on technicalities (one of the many things that makes it very difficult to prosecute a rape case). Perhaps the problem comes with the fact that so many conditions gives a judge too much wriggle room. The Fyre condition sounds pretty clear and simple in comparison to a four point checklist. And the new conditions don't open up the new sciences any more than the Fyre condition, so there must have been a different motivation.