I used VB 6 (and VB 3 as well). iTunes is still worse than both the VB 6 IDE and any piece of software I made using VB 6, and I wasn't making anything that could remotely be considered production-grade software with VB 6.
Since the Pauli exclusion principle only applies to particles with non-integer spin numbers, and zero is an integer, the answer is "yes, particles with zero spin are not subject to the Pauli exclusion principle".
Three comments: 1) Not everything scales up at linear-or-better rates; 2) Better distribution of anything reduces the impact of failures; and 3) Who the hell said anything about no more power stations anyway?
Ugh. I don't know why they're making that particular claim, because vacuum decay should be a property of spacetime (and therefore shouldn't be dependent upon the speed of light).
But yes, if vacuum decay is limited such that it travels more slowly than the expansion of the universe, you would have a "hole" with the decayed state in it which occupied a progressively smaller and smaller fraction of the universe.
Okay, let's run through your "points" one by one here (note: I don't play EVE, mostly because I've heard the learning curve is an absolute bitch).
* Unlike most other MMOs, it's relatively easy to put a real-world value on stuff in EVE (thanks to, if I'm not entirely mistaken, being able to spend in-game currency on your subscription fee rather than actual cash). The value of the "make-believe spacecraft" is enough currency to pay for X months, which is also how long $3500 would pay for.
* Nearby systems get moved to other servers in their server farm. The options in MMOs in general tend to be "block people every time they try to get into an area on the same server", or this - a temporary disconnection, followed by being on a server that isn't dealing with as heavy of a load. EVE's method, while it's a disruption, is less disruptive to the players than "Sorry, you can't enter this area" over and over and over again.
* The slowed-down time effect is not "a means to keep people from suffering from a slowdown of the servers". It's a means to give people a better chance to evaluate large-scale battles in as much depth as they'd be able to evaluate smaller battles. Or, at least, close to the same depth of analysis.
I mean, I understand that you think the hobbies of these people are inscrutable and not worthy of your time, but... well, what are your hobbies? I'm pretty sure there are people here who think the same thing about yours.
we all have hyper inflation (we are seeing this now in food, insurance, gas, etc).
Hyperinflation has a specific definition (50% or higher monthly inflation, so ~12,900% annual inflation).
No, we are not seeing hyperinflation. We aren't even seeing inflation anywhere close to what has historically been "high" in the US, except in the healthcare field! Hell, up until this weekend, gas prices were dropping.
The Tea Party is trying to undo everything that made the country great back in the 50s and early 60s. What do you call someone trying to undermine the country?
A jump from 900kbps ("around 1Mbps") to 7200kbps ("around 7Mbps") is very much a 700% increase.
The problem is a lack of significant figures here, which means that the "around 1Mbps to around 7Mbps" increase could be anywhere from as low as ~333% (1.5Mbps to 6.5Mbps) to as high as 1400% (0.5Mbps to 7.5Mbps).
This response has been brought to you by the -pedantic switch. Have a nice day!
Think of it this way (warning: sort of a car analogy):
You know those ads where they're like "We've got cars starting at $300, THIS WEEKEND ONLY!", and they'll mention some kind of halfway decent car at a ridiculously low price? That's entirely to get suckers to come in, and when they find out that the really good deal they were hoping for isn't there, well, there's the salesman, trying to talk up a new Honda Accord or such instead.
Hawaii serves the same purpose. It's to draw bidders in. We run it early, sell it to Canada while nobody's really paying attention, and everyone else can stick around for the crap states because people don't like to feel like they missed out on the only worthwhile thing.
(Alternatively, Hawaii was included just as an example so that I didn't get several metric tons of Southern butthurt for only including their states.)
Hence my petition. Get rid of (some of) the net receivers, gain some much-needed capital to help pay down the national debt in exchange, and as a side effect we have a smaller government to boot.
(For what it's worth, I don't expect to get more than a couple hundred signatures, tops.)
Thank you for illustrating my point of "incoherent arguments for the opponents", since nowhere in the GP did I say that the Republicans were the only ones using emotional arguments, or anything similar to that.
Considering that Republicans use emotional arguments for their supporters, moral ones for the undecided, and incoherent ones for their opponents... well, that looks like they're trying to keep their supporters convinced and are trying to bludgeon the undecided, and that they therefore don't actually believe anyone is their ally.
In other words, they're acting exactly like sociopaths would - they're convinced that given half a chance, their "supporters" will screw them over in a heartbeat, just because they'd do the same thing.
That would be "Luminous", by... hey, Greg Egan again. Good story, if kind of short.
If you want to stick in that general direction of things, BTW, the short story collection Dark Integers and Other Stories has that plus four other more or less loosely-related (I believe only one actually qualifies as a sequel to Luminous) stories. Probably your best bet for sticking to math-related fiction.
I guess I would answer your statement with the following (found throughout the book): Is Nothing simple? Would ours be a simpler universe if nothing existed? Then why doesn't the Law of Parsimony (alias Occam's Razor) dictate that a Nothing be in our place instead of our something?
Thermodynamic argument against Nothing (and, for that matter, the production of Something from Nothing): the entropy state for Nothing is infinite. (Specifically, negative infinity. It's based on the logarithm - in this situation, it doesn't matter what base you use, though 2 is traditional - of the number of possible states that are identical to the current state based on macroscopic properties, or of the number of bits of information needed to describe the system.)
Clearly, an infinity is a more complicated state than any other number, because you can produce any real number out of it without changing it. (That is, the solutions of "-infinity + x = -infinity" are... well, all real values of x.) Since x in the parenthetically-noted equation corresponds to the entropy of any given subset of existence, it therefore becomes possible to produce Something (an object with 2^x states) from Nothing (an object with 0 states).
The next step is determining what the simplest state is, and proving it, which will be left as an exercise for the reader. (I suspect that the simplest state is "an infinite number of objects at maximum entropy, such that the distribution of object sizes is itself at a state of maximum entropy" - but proving that is liable to be an absolute mess at best. The net result is an infinite multiverse where the component universes are of varying properties, including at least one flat universe with an infinite number of dimensions.)
A high neutrino-interaction cross section for these isotopes, perhaps? (Keeping in mind that the normal interaction cross section for neutrinos is on the order of 10 attobarns, something closer to 1 femtobarn would be considered "high" here.)
Erosion is a thing......but yeah, it's gonna be a few million years, and there'll be a few months of fun after you get out and they have to rebreak every bone in your body to re-set them.
(On the other hand, assuming you regenerate back to an entirely unbroken state, you'd be able to dig your way out. It'll still take a while, and it'll hurt like a bitch every so often, but it's closer to a timescale of "a few years".)
The problem is that there should be more mass than is observed. So theoretically there might be areas where the Higgs field is stronger, which would obviate the need for dark matter, but then the question becomes "why is the Higgs field stronger here?" (Well, that's one of the questions. Another question then obviously becomes "Does dark energy have the side effect of increasing the Higgs field strength?", and if the answer to that question is "yes"... well, I believe one outcome is "we get a Big Bang whenever the universe's density drops below a certain point".)
I believe the LHC has a higher luminosity than the Tevatron, which for low-probability results means you don't have to run the device as long to see results.
Slashdot Mirror
I used VB 6 (and VB 3 as well). iTunes is still worse than both the VB 6 IDE and any piece of software I made using VB 6, and I wasn't making anything that could remotely be considered production-grade software with VB 6.
Since the Pauli exclusion principle only applies to particles with non-integer spin numbers, and zero is an integer, the answer is "yes, particles with zero spin are not subject to the Pauli exclusion principle".
Three comments:
1) Not everything scales up at linear-or-better rates;
2) Better distribution of anything reduces the impact of failures; and
3) Who the hell said anything about no more power stations anyway?
Ugh. I don't know why they're making that particular claim, because vacuum decay should be a property of spacetime (and therefore shouldn't be dependent upon the speed of light).
But yes, if vacuum decay is limited such that it travels more slowly than the expansion of the universe, you would have a "hole" with the decayed state in it which occupied a progressively smaller and smaller fraction of the universe.
Okay, let's run through your "points" one by one here (note: I don't play EVE, mostly because I've heard the learning curve is an absolute bitch).
* Unlike most other MMOs, it's relatively easy to put a real-world value on stuff in EVE (thanks to, if I'm not entirely mistaken, being able to spend in-game currency on your subscription fee rather than actual cash). The value of the "make-believe spacecraft" is enough currency to pay for X months, which is also how long $3500 would pay for.
* Nearby systems get moved to other servers in their server farm. The options in MMOs in general tend to be "block people every time they try to get into an area on the same server", or this - a temporary disconnection, followed by being on a server that isn't dealing with as heavy of a load. EVE's method, while it's a disruption, is less disruptive to the players than "Sorry, you can't enter this area" over and over and over again.
* The slowed-down time effect is not "a means to keep people from suffering from a slowdown of the servers". It's a means to give people a better chance to evaluate large-scale battles in as much depth as they'd be able to evaluate smaller battles. Or, at least, close to the same depth of analysis.
I mean, I understand that you think the hobbies of these people are inscrutable and not worthy of your time, but... well, what are your hobbies? I'm pretty sure there are people here who think the same thing about yours.
we all have hyper inflation (we are seeing this now in food, insurance, gas, etc).
Hyperinflation has a specific definition (50% or higher monthly inflation, so ~12,900% annual inflation).
No, we are not seeing hyperinflation. We aren't even seeing inflation anywhere close to what has historically been "high" in the US, except in the healthcare field! Hell, up until this weekend, gas prices were dropping.
The Tea Party is trying to undo everything that made the country great back in the 50s and early 60s. What do you call someone trying to undermine the country?
And by 2018 North America should be the proud home of at least a dozen new countries, because the Tea stands for treason.
How are you keeping it lit, and where did you find rolling papers that size?
A jump from 900kbps ("around 1Mbps") to 7200kbps ("around 7Mbps") is very much a 700% increase.
The problem is a lack of significant figures here, which means that the "around 1Mbps to around 7Mbps" increase could be anywhere from as low as ~333% (1.5Mbps to 6.5Mbps) to as high as 1400% (0.5Mbps to 7.5Mbps).
This response has been brought to you by the -pedantic switch. Have a nice day!
Think of it this way (warning: sort of a car analogy):
You know those ads where they're like "We've got cars starting at $300, THIS WEEKEND ONLY!", and they'll mention some kind of halfway decent car at a ridiculously low price? That's entirely to get suckers to come in, and when they find out that the really good deal they were hoping for isn't there, well, there's the salesman, trying to talk up a new Honda Accord or such instead.
Hawaii serves the same purpose. It's to draw bidders in. We run it early, sell it to Canada while nobody's really paying attention, and everyone else can stick around for the crap states because people don't like to feel like they missed out on the only worthwhile thing.
(Alternatively, Hawaii was included just as an example so that I didn't get several metric tons of Southern butthurt for only including their states.)
Hence my petition. Get rid of (some of) the net receivers, gain some much-needed capital to help pay down the national debt in exchange, and as a side effect we have a smaller government to boot.
(For what it's worth, I don't expect to get more than a couple hundred signatures, tops.)
Thank you for illustrating my point of "incoherent arguments for the opponents", since nowhere in the GP did I say that the Republicans were the only ones using emotional arguments, or anything similar to that.
Considering that Republicans use emotional arguments for their supporters, moral ones for the undecided, and incoherent ones for their opponents... well, that looks like they're trying to keep their supporters convinced and are trying to bludgeon the undecided, and that they therefore don't actually believe anyone is their ally.
In other words, they're acting exactly like sociopaths would - they're convinced that given half a chance, their "supporters" will screw them over in a heartbeat, just because they'd do the same thing.
That would be "Luminous", by... hey, Greg Egan again. Good story, if kind of short.
If you want to stick in that general direction of things, BTW, the short story collection Dark Integers and Other Stories has that plus four other more or less loosely-related (I believe only one actually qualifies as a sequel to Luminous) stories. Probably your best bet for sticking to math-related fiction.
But it's clearly fat electrons stuck in the wiring.
I think I like that last option the best at this point. Sometimes the only way to get meaningful progress is to start over from the beginning.
I guess I would answer your statement with the following (found throughout the book): Is Nothing simple? Would ours be a simpler universe if nothing existed? Then why doesn't the Law of Parsimony (alias Occam's Razor) dictate that a Nothing be in our place instead of our something?
Thermodynamic argument against Nothing (and, for that matter, the production of Something from Nothing): the entropy state for Nothing is infinite. (Specifically, negative infinity. It's based on the logarithm - in this situation, it doesn't matter what base you use, though 2 is traditional - of the number of possible states that are identical to the current state based on macroscopic properties, or of the number of bits of information needed to describe the system.)
Clearly, an infinity is a more complicated state than any other number, because you can produce any real number out of it without changing it. (That is, the solutions of "-infinity + x = -infinity" are... well, all real values of x.) Since x in the parenthetically-noted equation corresponds to the entropy of any given subset of existence, it therefore becomes possible to produce Something (an object with 2^x states) from Nothing (an object with 0 states).
The next step is determining what the simplest state is, and proving it, which will be left as an exercise for the reader. (I suspect that the simplest state is "an infinite number of objects at maximum entropy, such that the distribution of object sizes is itself at a state of maximum entropy" - but proving that is liable to be an absolute mess at best. The net result is an infinite multiverse where the component universes are of varying properties, including at least one flat universe with an infinite number of dimensions.)
A high neutrino-interaction cross section for these isotopes, perhaps? (Keeping in mind that the normal interaction cross section for neutrinos is on the order of 10 attobarns, something closer to 1 femtobarn would be considered "high" here.)
Erosion is a thing... ...but yeah, it's gonna be a few million years, and there'll be a few months of fun after you get out and they have to rebreak every bone in your body to re-set them.
(On the other hand, assuming you regenerate back to an entirely unbroken state, you'd be able to dig your way out. It'll still take a while, and it'll hurt like a bitch every so often, but it's closer to a timescale of "a few years".)
I believe that's the cost for Sprint's "unlimited everything" plan, actually.
For that matter, Baen has also discovered that giving away copies of certain books is good for sales of later books in those series.
God, I love the 1632 series.
How exactly does lowering the amount of education provided per year increase the educated population?
The problem is that there should be more mass than is observed. So theoretically there might be areas where the Higgs field is stronger, which would obviate the need for dark matter, but then the question becomes "why is the Higgs field stronger here?" (Well, that's one of the questions. Another question then obviously becomes "Does dark energy have the side effect of increasing the Higgs field strength?", and if the answer to that question is "yes"... well, I believe one outcome is "we get a Big Bang whenever the universe's density drops below a certain point".)
I believe the LHC has a higher luminosity than the Tevatron, which for low-probability results means you don't have to run the device as long to see results.
Stupidity: the fifth, and strongest, of the known quantum forces.