Aside from the inconsistent use of plural and singular quanta/quantum, I'd be very surprised if no one was baffed by this: "In all cases, a photon's axis must be 90 degrees to its motion." Axis (of spin) and direction of polarization are linked, but not in a way simple enough to fit in this zero-math article.
"Figure 5.2 is an enhanced photograph of a photon..." - That is more than just misleading.
IANAMeteorologist, but I do have a physicists' union card. The heat from the condensation of water is an integral part of keeping a thunderstorm going. I think you can find the thermodynamics of it in the Feynman Lectures, volume 2. So this electro-acoustical story sounds like BS to me.
The joke is I can already do this on my palm Zaire only better. [...] I already have trailers to the movies I shot and my CG reel on it. Not to mention my portfolio and several hundred stills and I haven't begun to fill the one gig memory card.
Not to descend to spelling-flames or anything, but if I had a device that was so integral to my business, or even major hobby, I think I'd be likely to spell it correctly.
Will there be a Mac version and will it be released at the same time as the Windows version?
If I may propose a friendly amendment...
Will there be a Mac version released at the same time as the Windows version, and will it be missing an important feature such as internet multiplayer capability?
I fight with 50+ Cisco IDS devices every day. Run far, far away.
You fool! You weren't supposed to turn them on! You're supposed to just buy a few so you can check off the box on your plan. Looking at the output is highly counterproductive.
"Solution" means "whatever is capable of solving the problem".
No, solution is a word spoken only by the salesman (and perhaps the most brainwashed of his customers) and it means "the thing I have to sell right now."
I like to give vendors the buzzword challenge: they pick a buzzword from a hat and if they speak it during their pitch, out the door they go. Favorites: solution, technology, and enterprise.
Pardon my hubris, but I am sure I am not confused in any way. Perhaps you have confused proof with disproof, right with wrong. (Sorry, that's a bit heavy.)
Sure, no theory is ever proven right. Newton looked mighty good until the scope and accuracy of the tests were able to prove him wrong. Once we could measure the different between 5600 and 5557 seconds of arc per century, Newtonian gravity was obviously wrong. The claim I'm arguing against is your statement that "there is no such thing as a theory that is obviously wrong."
One theory might say that millions of tiny water droplets in the sky act like prisms and create a rainbow. Another theory might state that rainbows are painted on the sky by the Jolly Green Giant using a giant rainbow roller brush. After further observation and gathering of facts, one theory will fit the observations better than the other, but neither is obviously wrong.
I wouldn't have thought that my powers of perception were extraordinary, but if I see a rainbow form (which I have) and don't see a Jolly Green Giant, then to me the latter theory is obviously wrong. (Any appeals to an invisible JGG will be directed to the definition of "green.")
I'm not claiming Einsteinian gravity is right (let alone "obviously right"), but it's more accurate in some regimes and no less accurate in others.
If that's your theory of science, it is obviously wrong.
Newton's theory was not obviously wrong for a few centuries, but once a few very precise measurements were made, it was obviously wrong. A vast array of other examples could be provided by someone more patient than I.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
'm sorry, but 100 people aren't going to tell the tale of ALL those that enjoy porn
OK, she interviewed 100. How many did you interview?
Many people caught the plague and didn't die of it. That doesn't mean it was a good thing.
I'm not agreeing with the book's conclusions (if it has any) because I haven't read it. But I sure as hell am not agreeing with your message!
"Begging the question" is something else completely
Ah, the dangers of half an education.
Your sense of "beg the question" is the result of a wretched 16th-century translation of Aristotle into English. His phrase would have been better expressed as "claiming the principle." This news item's use of the phrase is now accepted by several dictionaries and other authorities.
EEG recordings were obtained in four animals from a set of five recording electrodes consisting of 1 mm diameter Ag/AgCl pellets on silver wire placed on the exposed dura around the circumference of a 1.5 cm diameter craniotomy access cylinder positioned over the parietal cortex and permanently attached to the skull.
I wonder if the numbers are skewed by the sheer amount of people who get bored at work and check slashdot from their company mandated windows PC
I work at a site withmultiple thousands of employees. Last week I heard the head of the department that does most of the Windows support seriously raise the idea of doing away with Windows.
Don't just imagine - RTFA! The gains are measured, and are smaller than you seem to think.
The interface is 150MB/s. That's only twice as fast as a top-end disk drive.
Which is why you SHOULD pay politicians and official reasonably well.
I asked for evidence, not jibber-jabber.
You could just as well have said, "Less Pay => Satisfied with a smaller theft" and concluded that we should pay our politicians and officials very little.
Rather than modding you all Troll or Flamebait, I challenge all of you kneejerks who say higher pay => more honesty (or lower pay => less honesty) to show some evidence for that claim.
I'm far from convinced you're right. For instance, it's obviously true that carbon dioxide doesn't immediately sink to the lowest places at Earth. On the other hand, several times CO2 has been dislodged from a volcanic lake or something similar, and has flowed downhill and displaced the lighter air, smothering a village or two of people. So it's clear that while there is a large degree of mixing, that the lighter gases do float on top of the heavier ones.
Good, we're almost there. The gases do mix, but if you have separate volumes of as-yet unmixed gas in contact, the mixing can only proceed at the surface. The rate at which it occurs depends on the mean free path of the molecules and the physical size of the unmixed volume, and so on.
Recall that the original bogosity in this thread was a statement (by neither of us) that gaseous tritium was not very dangerous because, as a form of hydrogen, it would "rapidly ascend through the atmosphere." I think we've reached a point of agreeing that that was misleading and incorrect.
(Actually, there was another bogon in that post: the assumption that the tritium was gaseous and not in a compound with some other elements.)
So by your logic, when you let the helium out of a ballon it just mixes with the air and doesn't rise?
Huzzah! At least one person here can learn.
Yes, exactly. Mind you, in mixing with the air, the helium spreads in every direction, including up as well as down and sideways, so some does rise. And since there's usually more air above the balloon than below, you can even say that most will rise.
Here's a thought experiment that may help the stragglers: consider a helium balloon in the center of an airtight room full of air. Burst the balloon. Ten minutes later - or ten days, if you prefer - where will you find the helium? In a thin layer at the ceiling, or everywhere?
Even if there are no breezes or air currents in the room, the helium will be spread very nearly uniformly in the room. Very nearly. In an ordinary room-sized room the only ay to get a significant non-uniformity in the distribution of gases is to chill the room so cold that the heavier ones become liquid.
It does, doesn't it? Then it gets cold enough that it starts to change phase back into water and rains back to earth. If it didn't rise, how would we get clouds?
If it does rise, how do we get humid weather? Or dew?
Really? It's funny; considering that hydrogen is the most common gas in the universe, why isn't the Earth's atmosphere mostly hydrogen? Is it not possible that it's light enough to rise to the top of the atmosphere and escape into space?
Yes, hydrogen is the most common thing, aside from stupidity.
If escaping by its lighter mass is the reason the atmosphere isn't hydrogen-dominated, why hasn't the hydrogen escaped from the sun and Jupiter, leaving behind the 25% helium they are composed of?
Why doesn't the water vapor all rise to the top - it's lighter than oxygen or even nitrogen?
Slashdot Mirror
"Figure 5.2 is an enhanced photograph of a photon ..." - That is more than just misleading.
IANAMeteorologist, but I do have a physicists' union card. The heat from the condensation of water is an integral part of keeping a thunderstorm going. I think you can find the thermodynamics of it in the Feynman Lectures, volume 2. So this electro-acoustical story sounds like BS to me.
Not to descend to spelling-flames or anything, but if I had a device that was so integral to my business, or even major hobby, I think I'd be likely to spell it correctly.
If I may propose a friendly amendment ...
Will there be a Mac version released at the same time as the Windows version, and will it be missing an important feature such as internet multiplayer capability?
You fool! You weren't supposed to turn them on! You're supposed to just buy a few so you can check off the box on your plan. Looking at the output is highly counterproductive.
No, solution is a word spoken only by the salesman (and perhaps the most brainwashed of his customers) and it means "the thing I have to sell right now."
I like to give vendors the buzzword challenge: they pick a buzzword from a hat and if they speak it during their pitch, out the door they go. Favorites: solution, technology, and enterprise.
Pardon my hubris, but I am sure I am not confused in any way. Perhaps you have confused proof with disproof, right with wrong. (Sorry, that's a bit heavy.)
Sure, no theory is ever proven right. Newton looked mighty good until the scope and accuracy of the tests were able to prove him wrong. Once we could measure the different between 5600 and 5557 seconds of arc per century, Newtonian gravity was obviously wrong. The claim I'm arguing against is your statement that "there is no such thing as a theory that is obviously wrong."
I wouldn't have thought that my powers of perception were extraordinary, but if I see a rainbow form (which I have) and don't see a Jolly Green Giant, then to me the latter theory is obviously wrong. (Any appeals to an invisible JGG will be directed to the definition of "green.")
I'm not claiming Einsteinian gravity is right (let alone "obviously right"), but it's more accurate in some regimes and no less accurate in others.
If that's your theory of science, it is obviously wrong.
Newton's theory was not obviously wrong for a few centuries, but once a few very precise measurements were made, it was obviously wrong. A vast array of other examples could be provided by someone more patient than I.
OK, she interviewed 100. How many did you interview?
Many people caught the plague and didn't die of it. That doesn't mean it was a good thing.
I'm not agreeing with the book's conclusions (if it has any) because I haven't read it. But I sure as hell am not agreeing with your message!
Irregardless isn't in the Webster's pocket edition, and in the Collegiate it's marked as nonstandard. Yes, I think that's a point for me, thanks.
Ah, the dangers of half an education.
Your sense of "beg the question" is the result of a wretched 16th-century translation of Aristotle into English. His phrase would have been better expressed as "claiming the principle." This news item's use of the phrase is now accepted by several dictionaries and other authorities.
Wasn't it Nathan Hale who said, "I regret only that I have but one asterisk for my country"?
--
"But all your Emitter and Collector are belong to ME!"
I work at a site withmultiple thousands of employees. Last week I heard the head of the department that does most of the Windows support seriously raise the idea of doing away with Windows.
Don't just imagine - RTFA! The gains are measured, and are smaller than you seem to think. The interface is 150MB/s. That's only twice as fast as a top-end disk drive.
Rather than modding you all Troll or Flamebait, I challenge all of you kneejerks who say higher pay => more honesty (or lower pay => less honesty) to show some evidence for that claim.
Has no one read RFC 3675?
He doesn't have three million dollars.
Good, we're almost there. The gases do mix, but if you have separate volumes of as-yet unmixed gas in contact, the mixing can only proceed at the surface. The rate at which it occurs depends on the mean free path of the molecules and the physical size of the unmixed volume, and so on.
Recall that the original bogosity in this thread was a statement (by neither of us) that gaseous tritium was not very dangerous because, as a form of hydrogen, it would "rapidly ascend through the atmosphere." I think we've reached a point of agreeing that that was misleading and incorrect.
(Actually, there was another bogon in that post: the assumption that the tritium was gaseous and not in a compound with some other elements.)
Huzzah! At least one person here can learn.
Yes, exactly. Mind you, in mixing with the air, the helium spreads in every direction, including up as well as down and sideways, so some does rise. And since there's usually more air above the balloon than below, you can even say that most will rise.
Here's a thought experiment that may help the stragglers: consider a helium balloon in the center of an airtight room full of air. Burst the balloon. Ten minutes later - or ten days, if you prefer - where will you find the helium? In a thin layer at the ceiling, or everywhere?
Even if there are no breezes or air currents in the room, the helium will be spread very nearly uniformly in the room. Very nearly. In an ordinary room-sized room the only ay to get a significant non-uniformity in the distribution of gases is to chill the room so cold that the heavier ones become liquid.
If it does rise, how do we get humid weather? Or dew?
I despair for the future of science.
If escaping by its lighter mass is the reason the atmosphere isn't hydrogen-dominated, why hasn't the hydrogen escaped from the sun and Jupiter, leaving behind the 25% helium they are composed of?
Why doesn't the water vapor all rise to the top - it's lighter than oxygen or even nitrogen?