Seems like not a single Apple story goes by without one of you guys smugly declaring how superior your Mac experience is.
Good point, I hate it when Mac users go on about how great their preferred OS is. After all, we NEVER have to hear about that on Linux or *BSD stories.
Wish I had the mod points to mod you up. It's amazing how many armchair teachers (and moderators) have chimed in on this thread who have no idea what goes on behind the scenes of the schoolday. My mom has taught public school for 20+ years, so I know what you're talking about.
If you take a look at our local elementary school parking lot after 3 you know they aren't staying late. When I drop my son off in the morning I see them coming in so I know they aren't there early. I don't buy it.
Are you seriously concluding that if a teacher isn't in the schoolhouse then they're not doing any work?
You have absolutely no idea of the extra work public school teachers go through. My mother has taught public school for the past 20 years, and she has ALWAYS brought work home with her to do. There were consistent homeworks to grade, materials to prepare, and lessons to plan out. She would make things out of construction paper (and we'd help her), or spend alot of time with MS Word making handouts for the next day, etc.
Do you honestly think all those lessons that teachers teach all day long magically prepare themselves? While it does get easier after a few years, there's ALWAYS extra stuff to do. And with textbooks and curriculums changing, as well as moving teachers around, the lessons are never static from one year to the next.
I've also heard the "we have to take classes in the summer". I know teachers and maybe once every 5 years do they take a class.
Well, my mother did go through extra night classes for several years to earn her Masters in Education, but as you say not all teachers do that.
If teachers would ditch the unions and tenure they might start being considered professionals along with doctors/lawywers/engineers. This might allow the good teachers to actually be compensated above the average and get people into the profession.
Unions and tenure are the things keeping the teachers from being exploited as just cheap labor, why do you want the teachers to get rid of them first? How about the schools (really the state and municipal governments) offer them professional salaries thus making the need for unions and tenures obsolete?
I'm no lawyer, but much of the original 26-page lawsuit is pretty ridiculous. Ie, the lawsuit does not only quote Wikipedia as evidence but also a French Mac rumor site as well. They claim that according to the French rumor site, Apple stopped display production for some time which implies it knew about the dithering issue, yet they continued to market the product.
The basis of the whole lawsuit seems pretty ridiculous to me. What I'd really like to know (and I didn't find it in the lawsuit itself, maybe I skimmed it too fast) is if the two guys that contacted the lawyers for this class action lawsuit contacted Apple directly and tried to get their money back first.
Hell, maybe 10 years ago I bought a Western Digital hard drive that was defective and obviously didn't work as advertised. Did I complain and launch a class action lawsuit against Western Digital? No, I got a refund and then bought a larger hard drive from another company.
Actually, what was the primary factor for stifling Cuba's sugar industry is the USA trade embargo, that collapsed the Cuban economy (which was predominantly it's sugar) overnight.
In the past few decades Cuba has reworked its economy entirely, due to the trade limits of it's biggest nearest neighbor, and has since made itself nearly a self-sufficient entity, which is actually quite remarkable in itself.
A 'state of matter' is typically regarded as having different macroscopic properties brought about by a phase transition. Of course ice/water is a great example, but superconductor/metal in aluminum is another example as well. If you really don't agree with this, then you'd consider gas and plasma to be the same state of matter (a point that the original poster disagrees since (s)he specifically mentioned gas/plasma being distinct states).
However, regarding the 'state' itself, it refers to the collective excitations being considered. Ie, one has an an electron 'gas' inside a 'solid' block of copper. The copper atoms (minus the conduction electrons) act as a solid regarding phonon behavior (and why that block of copper moves like a solid when you tap it but doesn't flow like liquid). Meanwhile the free conduction electrons inside that block act as a Fermi gas (more accurately as a Fermi liquid if you want to properly account for interactions).
Human physiology makes us more aware of the phonic nature of stuff, like whether it's a solid (has long-range interactions), liquid (short-range interactions), or gas (weakly interacting). But there ARE distinctive states due to electronic charge interactions (superconductor/metal/insulator) or magnetic interactions (ferromagnet/anti-ferrogmagnet), etc.
If you really want to break it down, the point you're trying to argue is that "state of matter" should refer ONLY to the phononic behavior, and entirely ignore electronic and magnetic behaviors. At this point the debate becomes only a useless argument over philosophical and linguistic minutae.
Maybe quantum mechanics invites bipolar trolls. If someone claims a wave, they can argue a particle. If someone claims a particle, they can argue a wave. If some claims duality then they can argue ambiguity.
You're totally confusing spin with particle/wave duality, which makes one really wonder what the hell you are talking about. You may be impressing the moderators with your blatantly-incorrect usage of fancy techie-sounding words, but it's quite obvious to the physicists here that you have no clue what you're talking about. And the irony is that you're guilty of that 'whoring out' which you are accusing actual physicists of.
Your original quote misconstrued the nature of fermionic vs bosonic natures of quanta, which the GP clarified, and you resorted to a wikipedia quote, which is quite out of context.
Irrespective of particle-wave nature, photons are spin-1 bosons! Why the hell are you bringing particle/wave duality into the picture at all?
All I suggested is that, rather than pronouncing new unprecedented discoveries every month, maybe the physicists ought to look into solidifying their dual wave-particle of photons. They'll find that all these other "new particles" and "new forms of matter" fit neatly with a which has been established for at least fifteen years.
If you had an inkling of the physics research, including theoretical, simulational, and experimental, that goes on in "highly-correlated" condensed-matter systems, you'd understand that the framework for identifying the various quanta and behaviors are well-defined within the basic "standard model" for realizable laboratory conditions. And this has been well-understood for longer than 15 years, what exactly is this 15-year time frame you're quoting anyway?
What is interesting is how modern 'exotic' materials can exhibit quanta with different charge, spin, phonon, etc properties than 'plain vanilla' systems. See spin-charge separation in a Luttinger Liquid for an older example. Armchair scientists like you may prefer to use the recent buzzword of emergent behavior if you like, although I don't agree Laughlin's mindview on the whole field of emergence.
Sheesh, you're spewing out pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo like a half-baked Star Trek dialog, and complaining when someone calls you on your BS.
You're telling me that fermions are not subatomic bundles of energy?
Subatomic? Bundle of energy? What the hell are you talking about? The ONLY property that defines whether a 'particle' is a fermion or not is whether it has half-integer spin. And the word 'particle' really refers to is a quantization, which can be any quantized excitation, doesn't mean subatomic.
Then applying the rules of Quantum Electrodynamics, a particle with well-defined half-integer spin must be anti-symmetric upon particle exchange, which leads to things like Fermi-Dirac statistics, the Pauli exclusion principle which is what makes atomic states look the way they are, etc.
Over the last ten years I've watched the news releases about physics--and it seems that physics is wh0ring itself out just for news headlines.
Perhaps you should actually read the scientific journal articles if you're serious about this, instead of reading the popular reviews which are by definition "dumbed down" such that non-PhD's can understand in layman's terms what is going on.
Did they really demonstrate a new form of matter? What did we have at one time? Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. We could have mixtures of the forms--like a suspension was a fine mixture of a liquid with a gas.
Did you actually read the JOURNAL article, or are you just extrapolating bullshit based on a popular science review of the actual journal article? If you actually didn't think physicists were 'whoring themselves out' your post would make you look significantly less ignorant.
You quote liquids and gases as being two distinct forms of matter, yet they're actually the same if you look on a phase-diagram plot. So why do you list them as being two separate phases?
Oh wait, that's right, you can go CONTINUOUSLY from liquid to gas, without any phase transition, along a proper thermodynamic trajectory of course! What makes them look like separate states of matter is whether you have a phase transition as you alter the system. And the phase-transition line (in pressure-temperature space) actually ends in a critical point (see here , such that you can choose a proper p-T trajectory either WITH or WITHOUT the phase transition.
Would you call a superconductor a new state of matter? It certainly is quite different from the metallic state, with a well-defined phase transition as you cool below Tc. What about a Bose-Einstein Condensate? What about a phase-transition from superconducting-like nature to BEC? These have all been well studied, and all are acknowledged as states of matter.
The fact that you question whether it's a new state of matter, and you refer merely solid, liquid, gas, and plasma without any reference to phase transitions, really shows your limited understanding of this subject. And that makes it all the more humorous that you actually go on to claim physicists are whoring themselves out.
In how many of those drills were you told it wasn't a drill and that the Soviets really were on their way to bomb the school? Or how many fire drills have you had where the teachers yelled that it's not a normal fire drill, the school really is burning down and you might burn to death?
What these teachers did was equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
The moon--as in, Earth's moon--is just normal matter that doesn't glow. Oh, and Earth is too! Neither are dark matter.
That's not true. Earth does glow, quite strongly, in the infrared. The moon glows too, although at a slightly lower temperature (and thus longer wavelengths) due to lack of greenhouse effect.
However, Earth's infrared glowing is of course due to the sun's fusion output. Ie, Earth is in equilibrium, where it radiates as a blackbody the same amount of energy it that it absorbs from the sun.
So (as far as I know) a dark-matter planetoid at the same distance from the sun as Earth wouldn't have this infrared glow, because it wouldn't absorb solar photons. It would just exert a gravitational pull (or maybe have some other exotic effects). So you are correct, though, about dark matter being different from non-glowing (ie cold) 'regular' matter.
"Superposition" does not describe a single state, it just means that it's somewhere in between.
No, a state in a superposition REALLY IS in it's own state, the Zero and One states it's a superposition of only act as a basis, but a qubit really is in a single state that happens to be a linear combination of those basis states. You can choose any two points on the Bloch Sphere to be a basis, and if you want you can even rewrite the superimposed state as being a well-defined ZERO in the newly-defined basis.
The thing about a state that is in a superposition is that it's not exactly ZERO and not exactly ONE, but more importantly is that being in a quantum coherent state you cannot measure what the state is with any ovserving operator without disrupting the state in some way.
Well, tri-state isn't really trinary per se, although outputs still have zero, one, and a high-impedance output state. The purpose of that high-impedance output is so you can stack multiple output lines (ie, multiple devices) on a bus, without them trying to overwrite each other, and you just un-tristate the relevent device through some sort of addressing.
Despite having what appears like three output states, tristate is not trinary for a few reasons. Firstly, the chip is either entirely tri-stated or not, you can't (as far as any device I've seen) tri-state just a single line. Secondly, other devices aren't designed to see the high-impedance outputs, in fact they're designed to entirely ignore anything that is in the high-impedance state.
The way to think of tri-state is as a regular digital component, with an option to dynamically in-situ 'remove' that entire chip from the digital circuit as needed.
The lawsuit is ridiculous, it's akin to Disney suing Xerox after someone makes and distributes illegal copies of a copyrighted Disney book.
Re:Here's my inside scoop at a google interview
on
Want To Work At Google?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So... You really want to work there? Yes, you get lots of money, yes you get brainwashed it seems and rather arrogant after a while.
Interesting, from your story it appears he wasn't the arrogant one.
When you were describing your physics optimization, you really shouldn't expect him to want to listen more than a few minutes anyway. You say you spoke 'different languages'. Communication is a key skill, and perhaps you weren't explaining your research project in a way comprehensible to an outsider of the field. Or perhaps he only has 15 minutes he can devote to the interview, lunchtime or not, and needs to get as much info about you as possible. You can't expect him to give you all the time you desire, merely in a first-stage phone interview.
He wants to see how you think, and you didn't seem to make that obvious, you were more interesting in answering questions with academic answers not immediately useful for the real world. His question for the phonebook asked "how long" it takes to look up the name, and just reciting O(1) isn't the full answer to this. You're right that logs of diffeerent bases are only related by a multiplicative factor, but if someone wants to know how many comparitive lookups you need what reason could you possibly want for expressing this in any base other than two? (I'm a physicist, not a comp-sci guy, so if there is an answer to that I'd be curious to know). To answer how long, you need to know how long each lookup takes and how many lookups you would need to perform (assuming he wanted an answer in time). You were like a politician, and answered a different question than the one he asked.
You also made it clearly obvious to the interviewer that you would be a very difficult guy to work with, Ie, if you're of average google hiring intelligence and experience, half of your coworkers at google would be less smart or skilled as you. And if someone needs help understanding big(O) notation for their project and asked you to help them, you might be a dick to them, as per your interview.
Additionally, if he's in a hurry, it's your obligation to sell yourself in the phone interview while making the most optimized use of time that you can, which you severely failed to do. In any job your superiors will almost always be very busy, and you must demonstrate how to efficiently use their time, as well as your own. You made yourself seem to high maintainence.
Finally, if the interviewer was in a hurry and didn't ask you if you had any questions, you should have left it there, or at least been mature about it instead of cutting him off as you said. This is only a first round phone interview, and perhaps not the proper venue to ask questions if the interviewer didn't ask you. If you're serious about working for Google, and they're serious enough about you to fly you back for a follow-up interview, that's where you should start asking questions. You should have done enough research about the company on your own, prior to the phone interview, to see if it's a good enough fit for you to seriously consider the interview process.
You complain about the interviewer making no attempts to lead a good interview, well sorry to bust your bubble but the effort to sell yourself falls entirely on YOU and only YOU. It's unfortunate if you did have an annoying interviewer, but in the actual workplace you'll have annoying coworkers too, and you need to know how to deal with them effectively to get the job done. Your focus at the phone interview should have been on selling yourself to get invited back to a second interview. At that interview you can then judge what the work atmosphere is like, and whether it's a friendly environment or not.
The interview doesn't only test your technical knowledge but your personality too. Your description makes it relatively obvious that you failed in all those aspects, and to me you really didn't come off as a mature responsible potential employee that I would ever want to hire. Sorry.
Jobs didn't gain ANYTHING from this deal, he never exercised the backdated options.
As someone else pointed out, his salary is $1 per year, but of course he owns significant shares of Apple, Pixar, and other stocks where the real money is made.
Since Jobs never exercised the options, his only guilt in this scam is in having been awarded the options by his company (where the options backdating was approved by Anderson himself who's making the accusation now).
It's kind of like your friend giving you a forged check from a rich person's account, and then him getting busted for writing these forged checks. Since he's busted he wants to claim you as an accomplice, even though you never cashed that check.
It also looks like Fred Anderson is also trying to stab back at Apple after their own internal investigation pointed to him and another former employee Heinen, after these two were let go. Apple claimed these two executives acted improperly, and now that Anderson settled with the SEC (and lost a bunch of time and cash in the process) he's trying to strike back.
See this article and this other article from back in January. Interesting that back in January, from the article, Anderson's statement is
And last week, a lawyer for Fred Anderson, Apple's former CFO, released a prepared statement that his client "did not play any day-to-day role in the granting, reporting, and accounting of stock options and he was not involved in any knowing manipulation of the process."
Yet, now having claimed he knew that Jobs was awarded or considering these backdated options, he would either violated his SEC ethics obligations, or was so insanely incompetent he should have been fired anyway. So by settling with the SEC he basically admits he did act improperly. It's obvious he most likely lied (or sneakily phrased his statement) back in January.
In light of this contradiction, why should anyone trust his word now?
Link please to data regarding CO2 levels preceding temperature changes. What do you think that means regarding our current CO2 level WAY higher than anything we've seen in the past 100,000 years?
Your knee-jerk responses are the exact reason Gore put the word "Inconvenient" in the title, as you apparently think we should hide our heads in the sand and assume nothing will go wrong, or that we're "rabid anti-capitalists" if we want to take a reasonable approach, not sure where you get this cold-turkey thing.
interesting you accuse people of not wanting to hear this stuff, global naysayers like you enjoy hiding your heads in the sand because any global warming impact won't affect your lives, as all of us here will be dead by the time the shit may or may not hit the fan.
Carbon dioxide core charts show that the Earth warms and cools every 100,000 years. They're in "An Inconvenient Truth," if you haven't already seen them.
Yes, I've seen the movie, and I've talked directly with scientists that actually supplied some of the data to Gore for the movie!
You miss the point of my post, the correlations between CO2 and temperatures are well known, for 100,000 years, and also for thep ast few hundred years regarding sunspots. The current CO2 level is WELL ABOVE AND BEYOND any level it's been at for the past 100,000 years, implying temperature will shoot up if that's a causal relation. Sunspot data right now does NOT account for the slight increases we've seen in the past 1-2 decades, which leaves greenhouse gases as the most likely candidate.
the recent warming which is not explainable by recent solar activity changes, coupled with HUGE increases in CO2, strongly imply we're headed for significant warming.
first I'll respond to the last bit, nuclear FISSION is definitely solar, where do you think the heavy elements come from? fusion, we haven't got working yet.
regarding ice cores, i haven't heard that, if anything i think temperatures have been lagging the CO2 levels, as CO2 levels now are way above anything we've had in the past 100,000 years.
regarding your movie, we have accurate sun spot data for a few hundred years, after they were first discovered, astronomers kept track of number, density, and location of sunspots. this tracks VERY closely with weather, coupled with CO2 levels from ice cores. EXCEPT in the past few decades, where CO2 levels shot way up, and Earth has started warming slightly, BUT WITH NO CORRESPONDING INCREASE OF SUNSPOTS, AS FOLLOWS THE PAST 200-300 YEARS OF DATA.
The article's credibility is actually worse than that, the 0.3% they quote is ONLY the decline in market share of the PPC brand Macs. TFA briefly mentioned that increases in Intel OS X market share didn't offset the PPC decrease, but they didn't give the Intel numbers. And then they quote the PPC market share decrease, subtely implying it's the overall OS X market decrease.
So TFA was inaccurate, not sure whether it was on purpose or just due to incompetence.
That's an age-old argument that conveniently ignores ALL the required infrastructure for a society such as plumbing and sanitation stations, farms and food storage and distribution, manufactureing and all the factories that would produce everything you'd have, etc etc etc. Other than the farming, NYC has that infrastructure.
Okay, first off, I'll pretend I fully buy into the "human-caused global warming" schtick. I don't. We may be CONTRIBUTORS, but not the root cause. But anyhoo, I'll bite in the "human-caused" thing for the sake of argument.
Please propose a scientifically reasonable solution as to what is causing global warming if it's not human based, and one that's consistent with 100,000+ years of earth temperature variations along with CO2 levels and solar activity, data of which we do have.
Even if the human race were to cease all industrial and agricultural output of greenhouse gas NOW (this very second), it wouldn't make a bit of difference in the warming trend. The material we've put in the atmosphere will continue this trend for at least the next century. So what exactly do they expect people to do?
You are correct that we cannot just limit everything, even the most conservative models that assume we all buy hybrids, cut down on driving, and stop increasing global population, still lead to runaway levels of CO2 in a century or so.
I attended a physics colloquium by a government scientist, the guy who actually got Bush to include the bit about alternative energy and 'switchgrass' in last years State of the Union address. So this guy answers to Bush, convinced Bush to mention this, and even this guy himself,who you might assume would thus be an oil-lobby crony, says we have to have an action plan ready within a century or so.
So seriously, show me a single professional scientist who says we don't need to do anything to stop global warming, or has a reasonable explanation as to why CO2 levels are HUGELY above anywhere they've been over the past severla hundred thousand years, and is fully consistent with CO2, solar, and temperature data over this time span.
Now anyway, what this government scientist proposed to do is immediately work on alternative energy programs and get ourselves off of carbon-based sources. One plan is do nothing, as you are implying we do, which could be an acceptable solution if you're statistically certain we're not the cause of warming and that nothing disastrous will happen. Are you statistically certain, other than your contrarian desire to say you don't buy the global warming theories?
What this guy did do is propose energy plans for all energies, from coal, to nuclear, to wind, to solar, and showed that NONE except solar are able to satisfy our expanding energy needs and to fully power the country renewably while reducing carbon footprint.
It makes perfect sense thermodynamically too, as ALL power (except geothermal) is solar energy anyway, so you get the highest efficieny if you go straight to the energy source itself. There are great improvements in solar heating techniques (ie, use mirrors to heat liquid in a pipe to turn turbines), and that is where he thought the future is.
Doing that in the next few years will allow us to reduce the carbon footprint and not get stuck in this level.
Another thing to consider are that the ocean has been absorbing CO2 for the past 100 years anyway, and when that saturates, CO2 levels in the atmosphere will skyrocket.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like not a single Apple story goes by without one of you guys smugly declaring how superior your Mac experience is.
Good point, I hate it when Mac users go on about how great their preferred OS is. After all, we NEVER have to hear about that on Linux or *BSD stories.
Wish I had the mod points to mod you up. It's amazing how many armchair teachers (and moderators) have chimed in on this thread who have no idea what goes on behind the scenes of the schoolday. My mom has taught public school for 20+ years, so I know what you're talking about.
If you take a look at our local elementary school parking lot after 3 you know they aren't staying late. When I drop my son off in the morning I see them coming in so I know they aren't there early. I don't buy it.
Are you seriously concluding that if a teacher isn't in the schoolhouse then they're not doing any work?
You have absolutely no idea of the extra work public school teachers go through. My mother has taught public school for the past 20 years, and she has ALWAYS brought work home with her to do. There were consistent homeworks to grade, materials to prepare, and lessons to plan out. She would make things out of construction paper (and we'd help her), or spend alot of time with MS Word making handouts for the next day, etc.
Do you honestly think all those lessons that teachers teach all day long magically prepare themselves? While it does get easier after a few years, there's ALWAYS extra stuff to do. And with textbooks and curriculums changing, as well as moving teachers around, the lessons are never static from one year to the next.
I've also heard the "we have to take classes in the summer". I know teachers and maybe once every 5 years do they take a class.
Well, my mother did go through extra night classes for several years to earn her Masters in Education, but as you say not all teachers do that.
If teachers would ditch the unions and tenure they might start being considered professionals along with doctors/lawywers/engineers. This might allow the good teachers to actually be compensated above the average and get people into the profession.
Unions and tenure are the things keeping the teachers from being exploited as just cheap labor, why do you want the teachers to get rid of them first? How about the schools (really the state and municipal governments) offer them professional salaries thus making the need for unions and tenures obsolete?
I'm no lawyer, but much of the original 26-page lawsuit is pretty ridiculous. Ie, the lawsuit does not only quote Wikipedia as evidence but also a French Mac rumor site as well. They claim that according to the French rumor site, Apple stopped display production for some time which implies it knew about the dithering issue, yet they continued to market the product.
The basis of the whole lawsuit seems pretty ridiculous to me. What I'd really like to know (and I didn't find it in the lawsuit itself, maybe I skimmed it too fast) is if the two guys that contacted the lawyers for this class action lawsuit contacted Apple directly and tried to get their money back first.
Hell, maybe 10 years ago I bought a Western Digital hard drive that was defective and obviously didn't work as advertised. Did I complain and launch a class action lawsuit against Western Digital? No, I got a refund and then bought a larger hard drive from another company.
Actually, what was the primary factor for stifling Cuba's sugar industry is the USA trade embargo, that collapsed the Cuban economy (which was predominantly it's sugar) overnight.
In the past few decades Cuba has reworked its economy entirely, due to the trade limits of it's biggest nearest neighbor, and has since made itself nearly a self-sufficient entity, which is actually quite remarkable in itself.
A 'state of matter' is typically regarded as having different macroscopic properties brought about by a phase transition. Of course ice/water is a great example, but superconductor/metal in aluminum is another example as well. If you really don't agree with this, then you'd consider gas and plasma to be the same state of matter (a point that the original poster disagrees since (s)he specifically mentioned gas/plasma being distinct states).
However, regarding the 'state' itself, it refers to the collective excitations being considered. Ie, one has an an electron 'gas' inside a 'solid' block of copper. The copper atoms (minus the conduction electrons) act as a solid regarding phonon behavior (and why that block of copper moves like a solid when you tap it but doesn't flow like liquid). Meanwhile the free conduction electrons inside that block act as a Fermi gas (more accurately as a Fermi liquid if you want to properly account for interactions).
Human physiology makes us more aware of the phonic nature of stuff, like whether it's a solid (has long-range interactions), liquid (short-range interactions), or gas (weakly interacting). But there ARE distinctive states due to electronic charge interactions (superconductor/metal/insulator) or magnetic interactions (ferromagnet/anti-ferrogmagnet), etc.
If you really want to break it down, the point you're trying to argue is that "state of matter" should refer ONLY to the phononic behavior, and entirely ignore electronic and magnetic behaviors. At this point the debate becomes only a useless argument over philosophical and linguistic minutae.
"Once past the range of a whole atom then everything truly is just a particle, with a waveform, which carries energy."
Out of curiosity, when you say things like that do you actually expect to be taken seriously by scientists here?
Maybe quantum mechanics invites bipolar trolls. If someone claims a wave, they can argue a particle. If someone claims a particle, they can argue a wave. If some claims duality then they can argue ambiguity.
You're totally confusing spin with particle/wave duality, which makes one really wonder what the hell you are talking about. You may be impressing the moderators with your blatantly-incorrect usage of fancy techie-sounding words, but it's quite obvious to the physicists here that you have no clue what you're talking about. And the irony is that you're guilty of that 'whoring out' which you are accusing actual physicists of.
Your original quote misconstrued the nature of fermionic vs bosonic natures of quanta, which the GP clarified, and you resorted to a wikipedia quote, which is quite out of context.
Irrespective of particle-wave nature, photons are spin-1 bosons! Why the hell are you bringing particle/wave duality into the picture at all?
All I suggested is that, rather than pronouncing new unprecedented discoveries every month, maybe the physicists ought to look into solidifying their dual wave-particle of photons. They'll find that all these other "new particles" and "new forms of matter" fit neatly with a which has been established for at least fifteen years.
If you had an inkling of the physics research, including theoretical, simulational, and experimental, that goes on in "highly-correlated" condensed-matter systems, you'd understand that the framework for identifying the various quanta and behaviors are well-defined within the basic "standard model" for realizable laboratory conditions. And this has been well-understood for longer than 15 years, what exactly is this 15-year time frame you're quoting anyway?
What is interesting is how modern 'exotic' materials can exhibit quanta with different charge, spin, phonon, etc properties than 'plain vanilla' systems. See spin-charge separation in a Luttinger Liquid for an older example. Armchair scientists like you may prefer to use the recent buzzword of emergent behavior if you like, although I don't agree Laughlin's mindview on the whole field of emergence.
Sheesh, you're spewing out pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo like a half-baked Star Trek dialog, and complaining when someone calls you on your BS.
You're telling me that fermions are not subatomic bundles of energy?
Subatomic? Bundle of energy? What the hell are you talking about? The ONLY property that defines whether a 'particle' is a fermion or not is whether it has half-integer spin. And the word 'particle' really refers to is a quantization, which can be any quantized excitation, doesn't mean subatomic.
Then applying the rules of Quantum Electrodynamics, a particle with well-defined half-integer spin must be anti-symmetric upon particle exchange, which leads to things like Fermi-Dirac statistics, the Pauli exclusion principle which is what makes atomic states look the way they are, etc.
Over the last ten years I've watched the news releases about physics--and it seems that physics is wh0ring itself out just for news headlines.
Perhaps you should actually read the scientific journal articles if you're serious about this, instead of reading the popular reviews which are by definition "dumbed down" such that non-PhD's can understand in layman's terms what is going on.
Did they really demonstrate a new form of matter? What did we have at one time? Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. We could have mixtures of the forms--like a suspension was a fine mixture of a liquid with a gas.
Did you actually read the JOURNAL article, or are you just extrapolating bullshit based on a popular science review of the actual journal article? If you actually didn't think physicists were 'whoring themselves out' your post would make you look significantly less ignorant.
You quote liquids and gases as being two distinct forms of matter, yet they're actually the same if you look on a phase-diagram plot. So why do you list them as being two separate phases?
Oh wait, that's right, you can go CONTINUOUSLY from liquid to gas, without any phase transition, along a proper thermodynamic trajectory of course! What makes them look like separate states of matter is whether you have a phase transition as you alter the system. And the phase-transition line (in pressure-temperature space) actually ends in a critical point (see here , such that you can choose a proper p-T trajectory either WITH or WITHOUT the phase transition.
Would you call a superconductor a new state of matter? It certainly is quite different from the metallic state, with a well-defined phase transition as you cool below Tc. What about a Bose-Einstein Condensate? What about a phase-transition from superconducting-like nature to BEC? These have all been well studied, and all are acknowledged as states of matter.
The fact that you question whether it's a new state of matter, and you refer merely solid, liquid, gas, and plasma without any reference to phase transitions, really shows your limited understanding of this subject. And that makes it all the more humorous that you actually go on to claim physicists are whoring themselves out.
In how many of those drills were you told it wasn't a drill and that the Soviets really were on their way to bomb the school? Or how many fire drills have you had where the teachers yelled that it's not a normal fire drill, the school really is burning down and you might burn to death?
What these teachers did was equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.
The moon--as in, Earth's moon--is just normal matter that doesn't glow. Oh, and Earth is too! Neither are dark matter.
That's not true. Earth does glow, quite strongly, in the infrared. The moon glows too, although at a slightly lower temperature (and thus longer wavelengths) due to lack of greenhouse effect.
However, Earth's infrared glowing is of course due to the sun's fusion output. Ie, Earth is in equilibrium, where it radiates as a blackbody the same amount of energy it that it absorbs from the sun.
So (as far as I know) a dark-matter planetoid at the same distance from the sun as Earth wouldn't have this infrared glow, because it wouldn't absorb solar photons. It would just exert a gravitational pull (or maybe have some other exotic effects). So you are correct, though, about dark matter being different from non-glowing (ie cold) 'regular' matter.
Well, we don't yet understand the nature of dark matter, but those dark stars are definitely powered by the Schwartz.
"Superposition" does not describe a single state, it just means that it's somewhere in between.
No, a state in a superposition REALLY IS in it's own state, the Zero and One states it's a superposition of only act as a basis, but a qubit really is in a single state that happens to be a linear combination of those basis states. You can choose any two points on the Bloch Sphere to be a basis, and if you want you can even rewrite the superimposed state as being a well-defined ZERO in the newly-defined basis.
The thing about a state that is in a superposition is that it's not exactly ZERO and not exactly ONE, but more importantly is that being in a quantum coherent state you cannot measure what the state is with any ovserving operator without disrupting the state in some way.
You can use tri-state in modern computers
Well, tri-state isn't really trinary per se, although outputs still have zero, one, and a high-impedance output state. The purpose of that high-impedance output is so you can stack multiple output lines (ie, multiple devices) on a bus, without them trying to overwrite each other, and you just un-tristate the relevent device through some sort of addressing.
Despite having what appears like three output states, tristate is not trinary for a few reasons. Firstly, the chip is either entirely tri-stated or not, you can't (as far as any device I've seen) tri-state just a single line. Secondly, other devices aren't designed to see the high-impedance outputs, in fact they're designed to entirely ignore anything that is in the high-impedance state.
The way to think of tri-state is as a regular digital component, with an option to dynamically in-situ 'remove' that entire chip from the digital circuit as needed.
The lawsuit is ridiculous, it's akin to Disney suing Xerox after someone makes and distributes illegal copies of a copyrighted Disney book.
So... You really want to work there? Yes, you get lots of money, yes you get brainwashed it seems and rather arrogant after a while.
Interesting, from your story it appears he wasn't the arrogant one.
When you were describing your physics optimization, you really shouldn't expect him to want to listen more than a few minutes anyway. You say you spoke 'different languages'. Communication is a key skill, and perhaps you weren't explaining your research project in a way comprehensible to an outsider of the field. Or perhaps he only has 15 minutes he can devote to the interview, lunchtime or not, and needs to get as much info about you as possible. You can't expect him to give you all the time you desire, merely in a first-stage phone interview.
He wants to see how you think, and you didn't seem to make that obvious, you were more interesting in answering questions with academic answers not immediately useful for the real world. His question for the phonebook asked "how long" it takes to look up the name, and just reciting O(1) isn't the full answer to this. You're right that logs of diffeerent bases are only related by a multiplicative factor, but if someone wants to know how many comparitive lookups you need what reason could you possibly want for expressing this in any base other than two? (I'm a physicist, not a comp-sci guy, so if there is an answer to that I'd be curious to know). To answer how long, you need to know how long each lookup takes and how many lookups you would need to perform (assuming he wanted an answer in time). You were like a politician, and answered a different question than the one he asked.
You also made it clearly obvious to the interviewer that you would be a very difficult guy to work with, Ie, if you're of average google hiring intelligence and experience, half of your coworkers at google would be less smart or skilled as you. And if someone needs help understanding big(O) notation for their project and asked you to help them, you might be a dick to them, as per your interview.
Additionally, if he's in a hurry, it's your obligation to sell yourself in the phone interview while making the most optimized use of time that you can, which you severely failed to do. In any job your superiors will almost always be very busy, and you must demonstrate how to efficiently use their time, as well as your own. You made yourself seem to high maintainence.
Finally, if the interviewer was in a hurry and didn't ask you if you had any questions, you should have left it there, or at least been mature about it instead of cutting him off as you said. This is only a first round phone interview, and perhaps not the proper venue to ask questions if the interviewer didn't ask you. If you're serious about working for Google, and they're serious enough about you to fly you back for a follow-up interview, that's where you should start asking questions. You should have done enough research about the company on your own, prior to the phone interview, to see if it's a good enough fit for you to seriously consider the interview process.
You complain about the interviewer making no attempts to lead a good interview, well sorry to bust your bubble but the effort to sell yourself falls entirely on YOU and only YOU. It's unfortunate if you did have an annoying interviewer, but in the actual workplace you'll have annoying coworkers too, and you need to know how to deal with them effectively to get the job done. Your focus at the phone interview should have been on selling yourself to get invited back to a second interview. At that interview you can then judge what the work atmosphere is like, and whether it's a friendly environment or not.
The interview doesn't only test your technical knowledge but your personality too. Your description makes it relatively obvious that you failed in all those aspects, and to me you really didn't come off as a mature responsible potential employee that I would ever want to hire. Sorry.
Jobs didn't gain ANYTHING from this deal, he never exercised the backdated options.
As someone else pointed out, his salary is $1 per year, but of course he owns significant shares of Apple, Pixar, and other stocks where the real money is made.
Since Jobs never exercised the options, his only guilt in this scam is in having been awarded the options by his company (where the options backdating was approved by Anderson himself who's making the accusation now).
It's kind of like your friend giving you a forged check from a rich person's account, and then him getting busted for writing these forged checks. Since he's busted he wants to claim you as an accomplice, even though you never cashed that check.
See this article and this other article from back in January. Interesting that back in January, from the article, Anderson's statement is
Yet, now having claimed he knew that Jobs was awarded or considering these backdated options, he would either violated his SEC ethics obligations, or was so insanely incompetent he should have been fired anyway. So by settling with the SEC he basically admits he did act improperly. It's obvious he most likely lied (or sneakily phrased his statement) back in January.
In light of this contradiction, why should anyone trust his word now?
Link please to data regarding CO2 levels preceding temperature changes. What do you think that means regarding our current CO2 level WAY higher than anything we've seen in the past 100,000 years?
Your knee-jerk responses are the exact reason Gore put the word "Inconvenient" in the title, as you apparently think we should hide our heads in the sand and assume nothing will go wrong, or that we're "rabid anti-capitalists" if we want to take a reasonable approach, not sure where you get this cold-turkey thing.
interesting you accuse people of not wanting to hear this stuff, global naysayers like you enjoy hiding your heads in the sand because any global warming impact won't affect your lives, as all of us here will be dead by the time the shit may or may not hit the fan.
Carbon dioxide core charts show that the Earth warms and cools every 100,000 years. They're in "An Inconvenient Truth," if you haven't already seen them.
Yes, I've seen the movie, and I've talked directly with scientists that actually supplied some of the data to Gore for the movie!
You miss the point of my post, the correlations between CO2 and temperatures are well known, for 100,000 years, and also for thep ast few hundred years regarding sunspots. The current CO2 level is WELL ABOVE AND BEYOND any level it's been at for the past 100,000 years, implying temperature will shoot up if that's a causal relation. Sunspot data right now does NOT account for the slight increases we've seen in the past 1-2 decades, which leaves greenhouse gases as the most likely candidate.
the recent warming which is not explainable by recent solar activity changes, coupled with HUGE increases in CO2, strongly imply we're headed for significant warming.
first I'll respond to the last bit, nuclear FISSION is definitely solar, where do you think the heavy elements come from? fusion, we haven't got working yet.
regarding ice cores, i haven't heard that, if anything i think temperatures have been lagging the CO2 levels, as CO2 levels now are way above anything we've had in the past 100,000 years.
regarding your movie, we have accurate sun spot data for a few hundred years, after they were first discovered, astronomers kept track of number, density, and location of sunspots. this tracks VERY closely with weather, coupled with CO2 levels from ice cores. EXCEPT in the past few decades, where CO2 levels shot way up, and Earth has started warming slightly, BUT WITH NO CORRESPONDING INCREASE OF SUNSPOTS, AS FOLLOWS THE PAST 200-300 YEARS OF DATA.
The article's credibility is actually worse than that, the 0.3% they quote is ONLY the decline in market share of the PPC brand Macs. TFA briefly mentioned that increases in Intel OS X market share didn't offset the PPC decrease, but they didn't give the Intel numbers. And then they quote the PPC market share decrease, subtely implying it's the overall OS X market decrease.
So TFA was inaccurate, not sure whether it was on purpose or just due to incompetence.
That's an age-old argument that conveniently ignores ALL the required infrastructure for a society such as plumbing and sanitation stations, farms and food storage and distribution, manufactureing and all the factories that would produce everything you'd have, etc etc etc. Other than the farming, NYC has that infrastructure.
Okay, first off, I'll pretend I fully buy into the "human-caused global warming" schtick. I don't. We may be CONTRIBUTORS, but not the root cause. But anyhoo, I'll bite in the "human-caused" thing for the sake of argument.
Please propose a scientifically reasonable solution as to what is causing global warming if it's not human based, and one that's consistent with 100,000+ years of earth temperature variations along with CO2 levels and solar activity, data of which we do have.
Even if the human race were to cease all industrial and agricultural output of greenhouse gas NOW (this very second), it wouldn't make a bit of difference in the warming trend. The material we've put in the atmosphere will continue this trend for at least the next century. So what exactly do they expect people to do?
You are correct that we cannot just limit everything, even the most conservative models that assume we all buy hybrids, cut down on driving, and stop increasing global population, still lead to runaway levels of CO2 in a century or so.
I attended a physics colloquium by a government scientist, the guy who actually got Bush to include the bit about alternative energy and 'switchgrass' in last years State of the Union address. So this guy answers to Bush, convinced Bush to mention this, and even this guy himself,who you might assume would thus be an oil-lobby crony, says we have to have an action plan ready within a century or so.
So seriously, show me a single professional scientist who says we don't need to do anything to stop global warming, or has a reasonable explanation as to why CO2 levels are HUGELY above anywhere they've been over the past severla hundred thousand years, and is fully consistent with CO2, solar, and temperature data over this time span.
Now anyway, what this government scientist proposed to do is immediately work on alternative energy programs and get ourselves off of carbon-based sources. One plan is do nothing, as you are implying we do, which could be an acceptable solution if you're statistically certain we're not the cause of warming and that nothing disastrous will happen. Are you statistically certain, other than your contrarian desire to say you don't buy the global warming theories?
What this guy did do is propose energy plans for all energies, from coal, to nuclear, to wind, to solar, and showed that NONE except solar are able to satisfy our expanding energy needs and to fully power the country renewably while reducing carbon footprint.
It makes perfect sense thermodynamically too, as ALL power (except geothermal) is solar energy anyway, so you get the highest efficieny if you go straight to the energy source itself. There are great improvements in solar heating techniques (ie, use mirrors to heat liquid in a pipe to turn turbines), and that is where he thought the future is.
Doing that in the next few years will allow us to reduce the carbon footprint and not get stuck in this level.
Another thing to consider are that the ocean has been absorbing CO2 for the past 100 years anyway, and when that saturates, CO2 levels in the atmosphere will skyrocket.