His "interview" with the detectives will now show up on every background check, which are common with job applications, whether disclosed or not, so his ability to earn a living has been compromised. He will also end up flagged for airline travel, be abused and humiliated by TSA every time he flies, so his freedom to travel has been compromised. It is possible that his passport, if any, could be revoked or refused renewal, as well. The grounds for that are not disclosed, so it's hard to tell. Apartment rental agreements also often include background checks, so he may not be able to live where he chooses. This man will be "punished" for the rest of his life, regardless of whether he is ever arrested, or not. Even if he is arrested and is judged "not guilty", the record of his arrest is not expunged, nor is his cost of defense reimbursed, so he is still punished. Meanwhile, the persons who set this upon him walk unimpeded. If there were any justice, they would rot in hell for violating the Commandment against false witness.
"Better safe than sorry" is an expression of cowardice. Life is a series of risks beginning with the genetic selection at conception. Given the odds that some child conceived, somewhere, will have a genetic defect (not to mention prenatal difficulties, post-natal trauma, disease,...), should we all stop having them? Get over it.
Every "new" thing is just as hotly debated as a new game. "My 'scope has 17 elements, instead of 16 like that one". Optics, recoil pads, new ammunition, bullet jacketing,.... Maybe some model of shotgun has a different gas port than the previous version, so you still have "is this really better, or just another way to suck in money", like game sequels and expansion packs. Hunting and target (fixed or moving) shooting have seasons, so the impending release of a new weapon or accessory needs to be covered in the magazine before its season, or the sales won't happen until next year. The upper-income gun users, in particular, are also competitive as any group of gamers, not just in scoring, but in bragging rights. You need to have a really good rationalization, and be able to make it stick in discussions at the club or around the campfire, to justify having perceived inferior gear, or suffer the humiliation.
You cannot test a gun in an afternoon. In addition to the trivial things about guns or most accessories that you see in a game, there are real-world things like temperature, humidity, intensity and direction of light, reactions to different ammunition, and for hunting weapons, how well they handle in real game terrain. Doesn't matter how accurate a rifle is at the range if every time to try to sight it on game, you find it has picked up crud in the sights getting out there.
Business guys with money, who buy $10,000 shotguns, are very often skinflints in a lot of other ways, so they're more likely to try to weasel a free subscription than pay more for it.
For a long time, I wondered about their 1 to 5 scale which seemed to be a 2 to 5, but the show on the PS3 release titles would have given 0s to titles (if they had 0s). Adam Sessler absolutely slagged one of the "Gundam" titles.
This comment is not a "review" of XPlay (for better or WORSE), but when they review a game and don't like it, you'll know.
you missed a point: the "gravity" (centrifugal force) would not be perpendicular to the surface. midway between the "equator" and the "pole", it would be at a 45 degree angle to the floor.
you could, I suppose, build a "stepped sphere" ( like the hats in Devo's "Whip It" http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/devo/videos.jhtml/ ), which is essentially a set of cylinders decreasing in radius from the equator to the poles, to solve the gravity problem. this results in the stellar light always arriving at the same apparent non-directly-overhead (except at the equator) angle. that would make for some interesting tropisms.
I've spent time optimizing block size, along with block offset, sparing strategies, etc. for SMD drives. 4K blocks worked well with System V on 68K, since it matched the page size (x86, commonly, too). There were also many more small files in those days.
I find that 16K works better now, when I have been able to try it, either by reformatting SCSI drives or using virtual disks at various "stripe" sizes (virtual disks don't let me tinker with sparing, of course). There are tradeoffs in the number of bits required for ECC at different block sizes, and the sparing strategy must be carefully considered, but larger blocks are going to provide more data on the media and better throughput until they start conflicting with buffering and physical media geometry. Further, the proportion of small files (4k, or less) is dropping. "man" pages are getting larger, along with the "info" pages, and mail agents often aggregate messages in folders (or globally), rather than having a message-per-file. I suppose the proliferation of ".*rc" files brings up the proportion of small files a bit. If you're on a UFS, or equivalent, what proportion of your files are tucked into the inodes (yes, I know it's different, but remember why the facility exists)? One of my continual annoyances with ext2 is the stupidly small limitation on block size.
Paging is about the only downside to 16K blocks, but that's really a small kernel tweak to schedule paging in media, in addition to CPU, block sizes. Even without the change, the read 4, merge 1, write 4 for paging ('specially if you can use a gather list for write DMA, since the "merge" is virtually;-) free), is a smaller cost than having larger file system blocks matched to media blocks is a gain.
I'm one of those people that that finds it hard to break off in the middle of a story (movies or books). If I've made into the second 15 minutes of a movie, then subsequent poor acting, weak dialog and/or plot, or clumsy special effects aren't likely to make me quit before the end. The difference between home and theater is that I haven't had to put on shoes, deal with driving and parking, or pay "entertainment" prices for snacks. Besides, at home I can always catch up on light reading while seeing how the movie's story unfolds.
The Amiga, long before any other desktop system, had a 3D system using LCD shutters sync'd to the interlaced video fields (interlaced video was one of the display options in the Amiga chip set), so your eyes saw different images, which your brain understood as 3D. With digital theaters, improvements in LCD tech', synchronization by RF, IR, or whatever it takes to trigger the tiny processor controlling the shutters (could be a component of the screen image), so there are no wires to the glasses, 3D is trivial to present. Takes a bit of compute power to produce, but still commercially viable.
Only two real problems:
digital movies are at pathetic resolutions, and 3D won't be better, so I don't go to theaters that use them.
theaters are full of stupid and/or inconsiderate people continually distracting me from the movies, and the theater owners/managers won't do anything about it, so I don't go to theaters.
Oh, and the movies are almost all terrible, anyway, but for a couple of bucks to watch at home, it doesn't bother me so much.
Those are useful skills, but the real combination of security and decent pay is "hands-on" medicine. Not doctor, due to the fairly high cost of entry and squeeze by the insurance industry, but med-tech (ultrasound for example) or specialty nurse. It can't be off-shored, unlike radiology or surgery.
The money buys the media time that drives the sheeple vote (and the rest of us away, with no alternatives), therefore the money is the vote. See "The Space Merchants" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Merchants.
There is one party at the national level in the United States, the Demopublican Party, dedicated to the proposition that only their members have a chance to get a seat. Until the House of Representatives looks more like the Bundestag, where there are some real choices and representation of more than the 1.5 sets of delusions there now, it will continue to be the Reichstag, regardless of which wing of the Demopublicans have the most seats. If you think it's inflammatory, do some research. The National Socialist Party of early-mid-Twentieth Century Germany was firmly dedicated to a business-government partnership (with religious zealotry), regardless of it's impact on the average German farmer, craftsman, or shopkeeper. The only difference between the wings of the Demopublicans is WHICH industries are favored: the "demo" wing supports Hollywood's (and, to a smaller extent, Silicon Valley's) agenda, while the "publican" wing supports the "big", typically industrial and financial, businesses, and major stakeholders therein, agenda.
"These include Aristotelian logic, counterfactual definiteness, absence of actions into the past, or a world that is not completely deterministic."
We've had many experiments that demonstrate concepts some people just can't handle. The "classic";-) experiment has to do with polarized photon pairs where the polarizations must be different. When one of the pair is tested for polarization, its state changes from a superposition of possible states to a definite one. The state of its pair-partner "simultaneously" collapses to the other state, regardless of the distance between the two. It "appears" that either information has been passed faster than light, but that defies the math' that seems to work well otherwise, that causality has somehow been violated, or that there are more variables involved that we haven't identified. The article describes an experiment that excludes some of the proposed variables.
If QM didn't so accurately describe a large number of events, no one would care that it violates their preferred "reality". It's like with the "information loss" when matter/energy cross the event horizon into a black hole. The indeterminacy and apparent irreversibility are at odds with some peoples' concept of how the universe works (mathematically, QM-scale events should be symmetric with regard to time).
Personally, I'd suggest that clinging to QM-incompatible notions, regardless of how well they've served to date, is less likely to provide a resolution to the discrepancy than accepting QM results as a basis for determining a more-inclusive reality of which those notions are a special case.
"Observation" does not require consciousness. It could just be that one of the photons interacts with a polarization-sensitive field in space.
In many ways, swine are a closer functional match to humans than sheep (omnivorous, for example), so I wonder if using them for organ hosts wouldn't make more sense. No "mad pig" variant of scrapie, either, AFAIK.
'Course, if some of the other posters are correct, there are "ulterior motives" in using sheep;-) or it could just be that Nevada livestock industry has sheep but not swine.
Several companies make IDE/CF adapters, and a few are now making SATA/CF adapters. Anyone know if Vista can distinguish these media from rotating ones and use them for this feature? Might be a good way to use some of the small CF we have laying around.
"Clippy, the bane of all semi-sentient Office users "
Sentient, and semi-sentient, Office users were not the target audience of Clippy, unless it was always intended as annoyance, leaving...?
Now that OpenOffice is usable enough, for me, I have stopped editing RTF in emacs. At one job, I was asked to explain to a co-worker how to create PDFs. I started with "go to this address
Rather than making "multi-tasking" illegal, make the pedestrian, or his/her estate, liable for damages, including lost time and counseling, incurred by the driver and vehicle owner, due the pedestrian's negligence.
Every time one of these simple-minded "scientists" proclaims Chicxulub didn't do it, because of "X", it reminds me how badly science suffers from monomania.
It's really not that difficult: the Earth's climate has demonstrated multiple stable (more than a few million years) and metastable states, ranging from snowball to hothouse, with side trips through conditions like our current glacial/interglacial metastate. The rate at which climate state can change, once change begins, is generally faster than species, particularly those embedded in "eco-web", can follow. When the Chicxulub event happened, the global climate state was moved toward a different one which was not conducive to the major fauna of the time, the dinosaurs. It didn't kill everything overnight (except near ground zero), but may have thrown off the timing of mating, reduced the efficiency of some primary plant's life-cycle, or in some other way moved the birth rate of the dinosaurs to below replacement (less efficient animals have fewer reserves and are more vulnerable to disease, for example). Some species and ecosystems may have required a few hundred thousand years to dwindle away, but the impact triggered that particular extinction event. Other events, such as the Permian-Triassic extinction, are more likely to have been caused by vulcanism.
If it was really "a HUGE deal for us Oceanic customers", you'd all just cancel your accounts to "explain" to Blizzard that is is an issue. Since you aren't willing to stop doing business with an obnoxious company, STFU.
Since I'm never going to own Vista (the EULA for all M$-Windows since 2K-SP2 is unacceptable), I, too, am looking for Linux games. Not Cedaga-compatible, but real Linux/X-Windows versions.
The old Western Electric (A.T. & T.) CPUs (WE31000/WE32000, as in the 3B-series computers) Huffman-coded the instruction set. More-frequently used opcodes were smaller than less-frequently used opcodes, so "instructions/memory word" was denser than typical RISC. Lots of registers, very powerful instructions. The processors did not fetch "instructions", they read cache lines from memory at the next uncached address of instructions.
My antipathy toward Microsoft goes back to C80, M80, & L80: extremely buggy and no support.
Most of all, though, Microsoft changed, in a totally negative way, the herd instincts of corporate management. In the pre-Microsoft success days, many companies tried to produce quality products, and most others paid lip service to the concept, since it was considered a positive selling point. However, since Microsoft got lucky with the IBM contract for DOS, shipping beta (DOS 2 & 4, W95, W98FE, NT4) or even alpha (DOS 5, ME, NT3x, various NT4 service packs), code to customers, using them as testers and charging them for the privilege, it has become a standard corporate mantra that it does not matter how bad a product is, one must merely "establish market share" to succeed. We can all see how well that has worked for the American based automobile manufacturers (the two of them that remain).
What the suits fail to understand is how Microsoft got to where they are (not the underhanded and illegal parts, those, they do understand). When the PC was released there was almost no rational justification for buying one. All the available software (Word Processors, Spreadsheets, Databases, terminal emulators, and games) ran on Apple IIs or CP/M-80 boxes. Additionally, PCs and the software were much more expensive and significantly slower. The difference was that "corporate buyers" wouldn't buy Apples, but would willingly piss away shareholder's wealth on PCs, 'cause "you couldn't be fired for buying IBM" (pure bureauratic cowardice). Once the PCs ended up on middle manager's desktops, helped by a generous policy on software piracy, they would buy one to continue work at home. This created a secondary market for software on those machines, in households with available funds, for games and other "home use" software, like screen savers, once the top-selling category of all software, leading to where we find ourselves now.
Bit of background: IBM originally developed the PC because the "Big Blue Suits" in Austin were very peeved at seeing so many Apple IIs in IBM's headquarters. Middle managers found that they could get results faster using the spreadsheets and databases on those than sending jobs down to the IT department. Having created the product for internal use, there was very little cost involved in pushing them through the normal sales channels. Some success there led to expansion into the "office machine" dealers market (IBM made good typewriters).
A bit more: the PC has the worst-possible CPU architecture that could be coerced into stumbling along because IBM purchasing selected the CPU vendor, not engineering. The engineers had selected the Zilog Z8000 (not Z80) which had multiple orthogonal registers and a very powerful instruction set (at the time) for them. The engineers liked it because it was conceptually similar to the mainframe CPU and quite powerful (first UNIX, Version 6, as I remember, that I logged into was on a Z8000). Purchasing liked to have "leverage" over outside vendors, so they selected Intel, about to go under due the poor perfomance and complicated interface of the 8080, compared to the 6502 and 6800/6809, while Zilog was under the umbrella of a small company called "Exxon", where IBM had no leverage.
The Generals and Admirals, according to the Nuremburg Trials, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are required to say NO when the orders are as bogus as the ones to invade Iraq this time. Their own intelligence told them that President Bush was either lying or simply insane. It was a war crime for Bush to issue the orders and for the Pentagon to proceed with them, just as much as the orders by Adolf Hitler, and compliance by the German military, to invade Poland. Further, the American officers didn't face the Gestapo. Too bad they lacked the integrity and courage to tell the President, behind closed doors, they it was simply not going to happen. What we should be doing is asking the Germans to refurbish Spandau Prison, toss the top three layers of the White House and Pentagon in, and lose the key.
Although scientists are often very sloppy using the word "belief" (except when some of them are talking about their schizophrenic religious fantasies), "belief" is a shorthand for the "too long" phrase "given my current set of information and ability to process it, this explanation (whatever it is) satisfies the questions better than any other expanations (whatever they are)". Even "belief" in the "scientific method" is just shorthand for "it works better than anything else we've tried" for providing understanding of the events in the universe.
When what was called then "string theory" was first proposed, it was a response to an observed, and theoretical, mismatch between quantum physics which describes small-scall phenomena fairly well and general relatively, which describes large-scale structures well, but which each seem to "fall apart" at the scale of the other. While string theory has been complicating itself, perhaps to the point of absurdity, NO OTHER EXPLANATION for the melange of particles and forces we observe can explain them either. That is why "string theory" keeps hanging around. If the "quantum gravity" proponents could adequately explain things, then string theory would be nothing more than a "quirky" sidetrack in our understanding of the universe.
About the only point with any validity in either of the diatribes is that, being human, physicists often display group/herd behavior and fail to be as open to "outside the box" thinking as would happen in a more-perfect world. What reasoning person would believe the loony who claimed that the continents moved? Of COURSE electrons orbit the nucleaus of atoms like planets orbit a star!...
Your post is what happens when religious nutcases fundamentally opposed to thinking, and petty criminals not smart enough to avoid capture and deportation to "the colonies", are the majority breeding stock of a country. Given the blatanly obvious stupidity posted, you MUST be an American (as in the United States of). You are an embarassment not only to the country, but the species.
I appreciate the comments, because they tell me that I CANNOT try it out (don't have any box dumbed-down enough) and would not bother if I could, since I do not watch TV or movies on a computer. The big screen is for video (and a "fishtank" screen saver on a Mac Mini). The iBook is for when, at home, something piques my interest enough to get on the 'net without disturbing my partners' viewing.
The theory, if I understand it, is that since the CMB and the energy from the nebula should have taken the same time to reach from where they were then to where we are now, and assuming that the CMB was not somehow generated "in front of or "at" nebula (which we currently deduce from its very red-shifted frequency and distribution), then we should see the nebula's emissions, but not the same strength of CMB that is measured from the "background" at very small angular displacements from the nebula.
I need to read the REAL article, since the "Science Daily" was a joke, but, here are some issues with the research as described:
#1 the universe has no "edge" in any layman's sense of word. We're no more in the middle than some galaxy 8 billion light years away in any direction.
#2 the CMB is NOT "pointed at" the Earth. It's going in every direction at the same time, including very, very small angles to "straight away" in any direction.
#3 the WMAP antenna is very good, but it is NOT 100% unidirectional, so it will pick up energy from a very narrow cone, not a line straight away.
Therefore the WMAP data will rarely show a "shadow" of much change in intensity, since the antenna will pick up significant CMB from off-axis of the line between the Earth and the nebula, even if the nebula is resolved to nearly all of the sample point. For that matter, it could be lensing on- or off-axis causing some of the intensity variation described in the artice.
The variations in CMB are incredibly small in the first place, and we don't have THAT many significant digits of intensity in the measurement range. We only really detected them when we got WMAP up there. Any additional small variation in CMB co-incident with an ionized nebula is going to be difficult to unambiguously assign to "shadowing", and the even smaller variations of variations from nebula to nebula are very close to the statistical noise values of the original samples.
As I said, maybe the "Astrophysical Journal" article is better presented, but so far, this doesn't sound well thought-out.
Slashdot Mirror
His "interview" with the detectives will now show up on every background check, which are common with job applications, whether disclosed or not, so his ability to earn a living has been compromised. He will also end up flagged for airline travel, be abused and humiliated by TSA every time he flies, so his freedom to travel has been compromised. It is possible that his passport, if any, could be revoked or refused renewal, as well. The grounds for that are not disclosed, so it's hard to tell. Apartment rental agreements also often include background checks, so he may not be able to live where he chooses. This man will be "punished" for the rest of his life, regardless of whether he is ever arrested, or not. Even if he is arrested and is judged "not guilty", the record of his arrest is not expunged, nor is his cost of defense reimbursed, so he is still punished. Meanwhile, the persons who set this upon him walk unimpeded. If there were any justice, they would rot in hell for violating the Commandment against false witness.
...), should we all stop having them? Get over it.
"Better safe than sorry" is an expression of cowardice. Life is a series of risks beginning with the genetic selection at conception. Given the odds that some child conceived, somewhere, will have a genetic defect (not to mention prenatal difficulties, post-natal trauma, disease,
You're off base.
.... Maybe some model of shotgun has a different gas port than the previous version, so you still have "is this really better, or just another way to suck in money", like game sequels and expansion packs. Hunting and target (fixed or moving) shooting have seasons, so the impending release of a new weapon or accessory needs to be covered in the magazine before its season, or the sales won't happen until next year. The upper-income gun users, in particular, are also competitive as any group of gamers, not just in scoring, but in bragging rights. You need to have a really good rationalization, and be able to make it stick in discussions at the club or around the campfire, to justify having perceived inferior gear, or suffer the humiliation.
Every "new" thing is just as hotly debated as a new game. "My 'scope has 17 elements, instead of 16 like that one". Optics, recoil pads, new ammunition, bullet jacketing,
You cannot test a gun in an afternoon. In addition to the trivial things about guns or most accessories that you see in a game, there are real-world things like temperature, humidity, intensity and direction of light, reactions to different ammunition, and for hunting weapons, how well they handle in real game terrain. Doesn't matter how accurate a rifle is at the range if every time to try to sight it on game, you find it has picked up crud in the sights getting out there.
Business guys with money, who buy $10,000 shotguns, are very often skinflints in a lot of other ways, so they're more likely to try to weasel a free subscription than pay more for it.
For a long time, I wondered about their 1 to 5 scale which seemed to be a 2 to 5, but the show on the PS3 release titles would have given 0s to titles (if they had 0s). Adam Sessler absolutely slagged one of the "Gundam" titles.
This comment is not a "review" of XPlay (for better or WORSE), but when they review a game and don't like it, you'll know.
Have you ever lost an entire month's output due to a server crash?
/ 02/1215200/
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05
Seriously, the most gloomy of the responders about how badly your department is about to be hosed are optimists.
you missed a point: the "gravity" (centrifugal force) would not be perpendicular to the surface. midway between the "equator" and the "pole", it would be at a 45 degree angle to the floor.
you could, I suppose, build a "stepped sphere" ( like the hats in Devo's "Whip It" http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/devo/videos.jhtml/ ), which is essentially a set of cylinders decreasing in radius from the equator to the poles, to solve the gravity problem. this results in the stellar light always arriving at the same apparent non-directly-overhead (except at the equator) angle. that would make for some interesting tropisms.
I've spent time optimizing block size, along with block offset, sparing strategies, etc. for SMD drives. 4K blocks worked well with System V on 68K, since it matched the page size (x86, commonly, too). There were also many more small files in those days.
;-) free), is a smaller cost than having larger file system blocks matched to media blocks is a gain.
I find that 16K works better now, when I have been able to try it, either by reformatting SCSI drives or using virtual disks at various "stripe" sizes (virtual disks don't let me tinker with sparing, of course). There are tradeoffs in the number of bits required for ECC at different block sizes, and the sparing strategy must be carefully considered, but larger blocks are going to provide more data on the media and better throughput until they start conflicting with buffering and physical media geometry. Further, the proportion of small files (4k, or less) is dropping. "man" pages are getting larger, along with the "info" pages, and mail agents often aggregate messages in folders (or globally), rather than having a message-per-file. I suppose the proliferation of ".*rc" files brings up the proportion of small files a bit. If you're on a UFS, or equivalent, what proportion of your files are tucked into the inodes (yes, I know it's different, but remember why the facility exists)? One of my continual annoyances with ext2 is the stupidly small limitation on block size.
Paging is about the only downside to 16K blocks, but that's really a small kernel tweak to schedule paging in media, in addition to CPU, block sizes. Even without the change, the read 4, merge 1, write 4 for paging ('specially if you can use a gather list for write DMA, since the "merge" is virtually
I'm one of those people that that finds it hard to break off in the middle of a story (movies or books). If I've made into the second 15 minutes of a movie, then subsequent poor acting, weak dialog and/or plot, or clumsy special effects aren't likely to make me quit before the end. The difference between home and theater is that I haven't had to put on shoes, deal with driving and parking, or pay "entertainment" prices for snacks. Besides, at home I can always catch up on light reading while seeing how the movie's story unfolds.
The Amiga, long before any other desktop system, had a 3D system using LCD shutters sync'd to the interlaced video fields (interlaced video was one of the display options in the Amiga chip set), so your eyes saw different images, which your brain understood as 3D. With digital theaters, improvements in LCD tech', synchronization by RF, IR, or whatever it takes to trigger the tiny processor controlling the shutters (could be a component of the screen image), so there are no wires to the glasses, 3D is trivial to present. Takes a bit of compute power to produce, but still commercially viable.
Only two real problems:
digital movies are at pathetic resolutions, and 3D won't be better, so I don't go to theaters that use them.
theaters are full of stupid and/or inconsiderate people continually distracting me from the movies, and the theater owners/managers won't do anything about it, so I don't go to theaters.
Oh, and the movies are almost all terrible, anyway, but for a couple of bucks to watch at home, it doesn't bother me so much.
Those are useful skills, but the real combination of security and decent pay is "hands-on" medicine. Not doctor, due to the fairly high cost of entry and squeeze by the insurance industry, but med-tech (ultrasound for example) or specialty nurse. It can't be off-shored, unlike radiology or surgery.
The money buys the media time that drives the sheeple vote (and the rest of us away, with no alternatives), therefore the money is the vote. See "The Space Merchants" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Merchants.
There is one party at the national level in the United States, the Demopublican Party, dedicated to the proposition that only their members have a chance to get a seat. Until the House of Representatives looks more like the Bundestag, where there are some real choices and representation of more than the 1.5 sets of delusions there now, it will continue to be the Reichstag, regardless of which wing of the Demopublicans have the most seats. If you think it's inflammatory, do some research. The National Socialist Party of early-mid-Twentieth Century Germany was firmly dedicated to a business-government partnership (with religious zealotry), regardless of it's impact on the average German farmer, craftsman, or shopkeeper. The only difference between the wings of the Demopublicans is WHICH industries are favored: the "demo" wing supports Hollywood's (and, to a smaller extent, Silicon Valley's) agenda, while the "publican" wing supports the "big", typically industrial and financial, businesses, and major stakeholders therein, agenda.
Quoted from the issue:
;-) experiment has to do with polarized photon pairs where the polarizations must be different. When one of the pair is tested for polarization, its state changes from a superposition of possible states to a definite one. The state of its pair-partner "simultaneously" collapses to the other state, regardless of the distance between the two. It "appears" that either information has been passed faster than light, but that defies the math' that seems to work well otherwise, that causality has somehow been violated, or that there are more variables involved that we haven't identified. The article describes an experiment that excludes some of the proposed variables.
"These include Aristotelian logic, counterfactual definiteness, absence of actions into the past, or a world that is not completely deterministic."
We've had many experiments that demonstrate concepts some people just can't handle. The "classic"
If QM didn't so accurately describe a large number of events, no one would care that it violates their preferred "reality". It's like with the "information loss" when matter/energy cross the event horizon into a black hole. The indeterminacy and apparent irreversibility are at odds with some peoples' concept of how the universe works (mathematically, QM-scale events should be symmetric with regard to time).
Personally, I'd suggest that clinging to QM-incompatible notions, regardless of how well they've served to date, is less likely to provide a resolution to the discrepancy than accepting QM results as a basis for determining a more-inclusive reality of which those notions are a special case.
"Observation" does not require consciousness. It could just be that one of the photons interacts with a polarization-sensitive field in space.
In many ways, swine are a closer functional match to humans than sheep (omnivorous, for example), so I wonder if using them for organ hosts wouldn't make more sense. No "mad pig" variant of scrapie, either, AFAIK.
;-) or it could just be that Nevada livestock industry has sheep but not swine.
'Course, if some of the other posters are correct, there are "ulterior motives" in using sheep
Several companies make IDE/CF adapters, and a few are now making SATA/CF adapters. Anyone know if Vista can distinguish these media from rotating ones and use them for this feature? Might be a good way to use some of the small CF we have laying around.
"Clippy, the bane of all semi-sentient Office users "
...?
Sentient, and semi-sentient, Office users were not the target audience of Clippy, unless it was always intended as annoyance, leaving
Now that OpenOffice is usable enough, for me, I have stopped editing RTF in emacs. At one job, I was asked to explain to a co-worker how to create PDFs. I started with "go to this address
http://www.openoffice.org/
download and install OpenOffice, then call me to come over".
Rather than making "multi-tasking" illegal, make the pedestrian, or his/her estate, liable for damages, including lost time and counseling, incurred by the driver and vehicle owner, due the pedestrian's negligence.
Every time one of these simple-minded "scientists" proclaims Chicxulub didn't do it, because of "X", it reminds me how badly science suffers from monomania.
It's really not that difficult: the Earth's climate has demonstrated multiple stable (more than a few million years) and metastable states, ranging from snowball to hothouse, with side trips through conditions like our current glacial/interglacial metastate. The rate at which climate state can change, once change begins, is generally faster than species, particularly those embedded in "eco-web", can follow. When the Chicxulub event happened, the global climate state was moved toward a different one which was not conducive to the major fauna of the time, the dinosaurs. It didn't kill everything overnight (except near ground zero), but may have thrown off the timing of mating, reduced the efficiency of some primary plant's life-cycle, or in some other way moved the birth rate of the dinosaurs to below replacement (less efficient animals have fewer reserves and are more vulnerable to disease, for example). Some species and ecosystems may have required a few hundred thousand years to dwindle away, but the impact triggered that particular extinction event. Other events, such as the Permian-Triassic extinction, are more likely to have been caused by vulcanism.
If it was really "a HUGE deal for us Oceanic customers", you'd all just cancel your accounts to "explain" to Blizzard that is is an issue. Since you aren't willing to stop doing business with an obnoxious company, STFU.
You Warcraft fanboys are a truly pathetic bunch.
Since I'm never going to own Vista (the EULA for all M$-Windows since 2K-SP2 is unacceptable), I, too, am looking for Linux games. Not Cedaga-compatible, but real Linux/X-Windows versions.
The old Western Electric (A.T. & T.) CPUs (WE31000/WE32000, as in the 3B-series computers) Huffman-coded the instruction set. More-frequently used opcodes were smaller than less-frequently used opcodes, so "instructions/memory word" was denser than typical RISC. Lots of registers, very powerful instructions. The processors did not fetch "instructions", they read cache lines from memory at the next uncached address of instructions.
My antipathy toward Microsoft goes back to C80, M80, & L80: extremely buggy and no support.
Most of all, though, Microsoft changed, in a totally negative way, the herd instincts of corporate management. In the pre-Microsoft success days, many companies tried to produce quality products, and most others paid lip service to the concept, since it was considered a positive selling point. However, since Microsoft got lucky with the IBM contract for DOS, shipping beta (DOS 2 & 4, W95, W98FE, NT4) or even alpha (DOS 5, ME, NT3x, various NT4 service packs), code to customers, using them as testers and charging them for the privilege, it has become a standard corporate mantra that it does not matter how bad a product is, one must merely "establish market share" to succeed. We can all see how well that has worked for the American based automobile manufacturers (the two of them that remain).
What the suits fail to understand is how Microsoft got to where they are (not the underhanded and illegal parts, those, they do understand). When the PC was released there was almost no rational justification for buying one. All the available software (Word Processors, Spreadsheets, Databases, terminal emulators, and games) ran on Apple IIs or CP/M-80 boxes. Additionally, PCs and the software were much more expensive and significantly slower. The difference was that "corporate buyers" wouldn't buy Apples, but would willingly piss away shareholder's wealth on PCs, 'cause "you couldn't be fired for buying IBM" (pure bureauratic cowardice). Once the PCs ended up on middle manager's desktops, helped by a generous policy on software piracy, they would buy one to continue work at home. This created a secondary market for software on those machines, in households with available funds, for games and other "home use" software, like screen savers, once the top-selling category of all software, leading to where we find ourselves now.
Bit of background: IBM originally developed the PC because the "Big Blue Suits" in Austin were very peeved at seeing so many Apple IIs in IBM's headquarters. Middle managers found that they could get results faster using the spreadsheets and databases on those than sending jobs down to the IT department. Having created the product for internal use, there was very little cost involved in pushing them through the normal sales channels. Some success there led to expansion into the "office machine" dealers market (IBM made good typewriters).
A bit more: the PC has the worst-possible CPU architecture that could be coerced into stumbling along because IBM purchasing selected the CPU vendor, not engineering. The engineers had selected the Zilog Z8000 (not Z80) which had multiple orthogonal registers and a very powerful instruction set (at the time) for them. The engineers liked it because it was conceptually similar to the mainframe CPU and quite powerful (first UNIX, Version 6, as I remember, that I logged into was on a Z8000). Purchasing liked to have "leverage" over outside vendors, so they selected Intel, about to go under due the poor perfomance and complicated interface of the 8080, compared to the 6502 and 6800/6809, while Zilog was under the umbrella of a small company called "Exxon", where IBM had no leverage.
That is a completely false concept.
The Generals and Admirals, according to the Nuremburg Trials, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are required to say NO when the orders are as bogus as the ones to invade Iraq this time. Their own intelligence told them that President Bush was either lying or simply insane. It was a war crime for Bush to issue the orders and for the Pentagon to proceed with them, just as much as the orders by Adolf Hitler, and compliance by the German military, to invade Poland. Further, the American officers didn't face the Gestapo. Too bad they lacked the integrity and courage to tell the President, behind closed doors, they it was simply not going to happen. What we should be doing is asking the Germans to refurbish Spandau Prison, toss the top three layers of the White House and Pentagon in, and lose the key.
PferdMerde!!!!
...
Although scientists are often very sloppy using the word "belief" (except when some of them are talking about their schizophrenic religious fantasies), "belief" is a shorthand for the "too long" phrase "given my current set of information and ability to process it, this explanation (whatever it is) satisfies the questions better than any other expanations (whatever they are)". Even "belief" in the "scientific method" is just shorthand for "it works better than anything else we've tried" for providing understanding of the events in the universe.
When what was called then "string theory" was first proposed, it was a response to an observed, and theoretical, mismatch between quantum physics which describes small-scall phenomena fairly well and general relatively, which describes large-scale structures well, but which each seem to "fall apart" at the scale of the other. While string theory has been complicating itself, perhaps to the point of absurdity, NO OTHER EXPLANATION for the melange of particles and forces we observe can explain them either. That is why "string theory" keeps hanging around. If the "quantum gravity" proponents could adequately explain things, then string theory would be nothing more than a "quirky" sidetrack in our understanding of the universe.
About the only point with any validity in either of the diatribes is that, being human, physicists often display group/herd behavior and fail to be as open to "outside the box" thinking as would happen in a more-perfect world. What reasoning person would believe the loony who claimed that the continents moved? Of COURSE electrons orbit the nucleaus of atoms like planets orbit a star!
Your post is what happens when religious nutcases fundamentally opposed to thinking, and petty criminals not smart enough to avoid capture and deportation to "the colonies", are the majority breeding stock of a country. Given the blatanly obvious stupidity posted, you MUST be an American (as in the United States of). You are an embarassment not only to the country, but the species.
I appreciate the comments, because they tell me that I CANNOT try it out (don't have any box dumbed-down enough) and would not bother if I could, since I do not watch TV or movies on a computer. The big screen is for video (and a "fishtank" screen saver on a Mac Mini). The iBook is for when, at home, something piques my interest enough to get on the 'net without disturbing my partners' viewing.
The theory, if I understand it, is that since the CMB and the energy from the nebula should have taken the same time to reach from where they were then to where we are now, and assuming that the CMB was not somehow generated "in front of or "at" nebula (which we currently deduce from its very red-shifted frequency and distribution), then we should see the nebula's emissions, but not the same strength of CMB that is measured from the "background" at very small angular displacements from the nebula.
I need to read the REAL article, since the "Science Daily" was a joke, but, here are some issues with the research as described:
#1 the universe has no "edge" in any layman's sense of word. We're no more in the middle than some galaxy 8 billion light years away in any direction.
#2 the CMB is NOT "pointed at" the Earth. It's going in every direction at the same time, including very, very small angles to "straight away" in any direction.
#3 the WMAP antenna is very good, but it is NOT 100% unidirectional, so it will pick up energy from a very narrow cone, not a line straight away.
Therefore the WMAP data will rarely show a "shadow" of much change in intensity, since the antenna will pick up significant CMB from off-axis of the line between the Earth and the nebula, even if the nebula is resolved to nearly all of the sample point. For that matter, it could be lensing on- or off-axis causing some of the intensity variation described in the artice.
The variations in CMB are incredibly small in the first place, and we don't have THAT many significant digits of intensity in the measurement range. We only really detected them when we got WMAP up there. Any additional small variation in CMB co-incident with an ionized nebula is going to be difficult to unambiguously assign to "shadowing", and the even smaller variations of variations from nebula to nebula are very close to the statistical noise values of the original samples.
As I said, maybe the "Astrophysical Journal" article is better presented, but so far, this doesn't sound well thought-out.