There are many areas where the generating capacity is already marginal.
Actually, there are very few areas where whatever capacity there is, isn't considerably more available at night. Because almost everyone is asleep, it's cooler, A/C loads are down, and not much else is going on. And of course, there is plenty of solar waiting to be tapped, etc. once they work out a way to store it half-decently. Sure, it won't be perfect. But you know what? The nearest city in my state is 290 miles away, and the three gas stations are arranged along that trip at 70 miles, 210 miles, and 230 miles respectively -- then finally in the city there's plenty. Underserved areas are nothing new. It won't stop the process. Where new capacity needs to appear, it will. Eventually. Even if my area doesn't get enough power in the right places right away, most everywhere else will. But you know what? While they have to truck fuel to us, we have a huge dam 20 miles from here with a couple huge hydro generators. So I might do better than one might think. The trick is that 290 mile drive... need a vehicle that can do that with the heat or AC running, lights on, etc. Nothing like that on the radar. Yet.
Perhaps we can even stop wasting so much power blotting out the night sky with all those damned streetlights. Who knows? Perhaps the nation's kids will be generally able to see the stars again. It's a nice thought, anyway.
Also, just as sort of a postscript, lighting, even fairly high powered lighting, is transitioning to a considerably less greedy tech, LEDs. Power consumption of a converted light source is way down. Things like that, applied nationally, will also have positive effects on available power, even if the paranoid keep the streetlights on forever.
Don't worry. Power's not going to be the showstopper. Unless we can get around it somehow, it'll be storage that bites us all in the posterior. Because right now batteries, in a word, suck.
Not arguing about the time frame - seems optimistic to me - but:
Where are all these electric vehicles going to CHARGE?
Many of these vehicles will be able to adequately charge at home, at night, when the grid is considerably unloaded as compared to the day - it's a perfectly reasonable scenario. Most of us rest at night. Most of those vehicles won't be going on long trips on any given day, and so most of them won't even need that much of a charge. You'll see charging stations where you're used to seeing parking meters in cities and towns, too.
The idea that there's insufficient infrastructure to handle a fleet composed of mostly electric vehicles is almost entirely wrong. And for the high-charge, long-haul requirements, those waystations can be built the same way: pick up energy at night, hand it out 24/7. Most of this is just engineering.
The real problem right now is batteries, or energy storage in the car. Expensive, short-lived, toxic, heavy, and simply not enough of them. When and if that's solved, EVs will come into their own. Not before. Right now they are a wealthy person's toy. 30 grand for what amounts to a VW bug, only with less Hitler.
Nope, not that generous any more. Plus, I no longer have a paper tape reader.:) I'll probably sell it someday, so it doesn't get lost in some relative's WTF box at the time of my death.
However, I did write a complete emulation of the 6809 and the Flex OS, which you can get from here, if you're so inclined. It's a few years later than the paper tape, but on the other hand, it's hugely more capable, just as one might expect. Plus, the 6809 is a dream to program, unlike any other microprocessor of its vintage, or prior.
Teletypes? Luxury! We had switches we used to load programs! And perfectly good incandescent status bulbs to read the output on! Later, we got paper tape punches and readers, and we were so happy!
==> ...still has copy of Tiny Basic on oiled paper tape, safe in a film canister
They don't need (and I really wish they would not consider) a case redesign. The 2008/2009 cases were (still are) fabulous. Great cooling, hugely serviceable, expandable, plenty of room for drives, rackable, plenty of I/O, good looking, tough, quiet, reasonably secure...
All they actually need to do is abandon that trashcan thing as a (really) bad idea and cook up a new tower-fitting motherboard, for which I have no doubt whatsoever Intel has readily available sample electrical designs, add the I/O sauce of the day to it, change a few cutouts for the case to match, and ship the damn thing.
That whole "sometime in 2018" could mean they're going to do something "courageous" again. Otherwise there's little excuse for the timing. Well, unless they're not starting until 2018. Which might be the case. [lies:] No pun intended.
It's possible the new "courage" will be something worthy, but based on the trashcan and the headphone screwups and the lack of wired networks on various models and the withering of the mini's capabilities... I think "courage" has failed them as far as actually making something, you know, better. I just wish they would go back to the tower. Maybe pop out a mid-tower for the masses, too.
Here's hoping. I'd almost certainly buy a new mac pro with current CPU and (upgradable) GPU hardware and upgradable memory and drives and so on. Unless they screw it up. Again.
I write software. Generally non-trivial application software. For instance, this is something I'm working on, and have been for some years now.
How would you feel if 10 years from now something failed and you were required to go back and fix it?
I have been fixing products for years as the bugs / errors were found. For free. Usually within hours or at most, days. I feel really good about it. For my commercial work, I charge for new features and keeping up with OS malfuckery. Not for my own errors. I am also very careful to maintain maximum compatibility with various OS releases -- rather than using the new OS features, I concentrate on using as few OS features as possible; and when they break I write my own if at all possible, thereby eliminating the dependence on the now-broken OS feature. For instance, at some point Apple's OS X file dialog began hanging the system when opened, which is pretty much a death sentence for real time signal processing software. So I wrote my own. No more hangs, plus it has some cool features the OS X dialog doesn't -- and it's highly unlikely to break, because it is coupled in as limited a manner as I could manage to OS X. But if it does, I'll fix it.
I am willing to put my best efforts forward fix every bug I can find that is "mine." I work around OS bugs if and when I manage to figure out how. I keep my documentation up to date, basically the same philosophy applies there: the docs should be as "right" as I can make them. I wrote my own documentation system to make sure I could keep control of that without my work becoming roadkill consequent to the "next cool thing" WRT someone else's documentation system.
Again: perfectly content with this. I like keeping my work as current as possible and as reliable and accurately represented as possible. I sleep very well because of it.
A car manufacturer is actually legally required to support their vehicles. If your car has a problem, and you discover it 10 years or more after manufacture, even if they sell the same model where they've fixed that flaw, they are in no way required to fix it on your car.
If the vehicle was defective with regard to features and/or capabilities touted at the time of sale, then in my opinion -- and I agree, not the law's, but the law is often bad and/or wrong, and I submit that this is one of those cases -- then the manufacturer should remain on the hook. That's not about wear; it's about it being what they said it was at the time of sale. If it isn't what they said it was, then they either owe a fix, or a refund. Simple fix: Don't sell stuff you aren't willing to put your best efforts into. I don't find that to be any problem. Then again, I'm the boss, so I get to say that. I don't need the law to tell me to do that, I do it because I am confident that it is the right thing to do.
Legally, 10 years tends to be the expected lifespan of things. Don't believe me, look how long your houses structural warranty lasts. Yup, 10 years. Even though standard mortgages are 30 years.
Apples and oranges. I'm not talking about something wearing out. I'm talking about it being supplied in a defective state.
1) Company sells you a home, claims has full basement 2) You buy it 3) Turns out there's no basement...yes, even if it takes you fifty years to figure it out, they should still be on the hook for the deceit and the consequences of that deceit.
If they outright say a product is no longer supported, I see no reason to hold them accountable for user laziness/stupidity/cheapness/pick a negative attribute.
How about "my software doesn't work on your new stuff"? Where's the negative attribute there? Eh?
Here's my view: If you sell a product, you should fix any bugs or non-performance issues that relate to claims made when you sold it. Application, OS, driver, etc.
An example:
Let's say you sell me a product, version N, on the basis that it loads images, allows me to apply various image processing operations including contrast, and then save the resulting changed image.
Later -- even much later -- I discover that the contrast operation doesn't work. You're still selling the product, and you've fixed the problem (so in such a case, we know you *can* fix the problem) but now it's on version N+X, and you want me to buy an upgrade to get a working contrast operation.
It is my position that either you should fix it, provide me with the upgrade at no charge to remedy your screwup (which some OS vendors will do, Apple, for instance), and your upgrade must in no way take away any advertised capability I already bought from you, or which depends on APIs you published, or: you should give me my money back.
If you won't fix the problem, I see that as you having sold me a product under false pretenses. You said it would work: it doesn't. You won't fix it.
What I don't see as reasonable is basically selling broken stuff and then expecting everyone to accept that. If you sell me a defective chair, house or swing-set, I expect you to fix it to the best of your ability. If you sell me defective software, I expect you to fix that to the same degree.
This whole "I'm selling you two things: broken software and a big fuck you" is a bad idea, and leaves a huge trail of broken and incompatible shit around for everyone to deal with.
There's more to this, but it all boils down to a presumption of "abandonment is okay" that I see as almost always a sign of ethically bankrupt management. Not always. But usually. Certainly in every case where the software in question won't / can't do what it claimed it would.
Thank you. Although I have no great depth in the areas you're describing, you did provide a coherent framework that gives me some idea what might be happening. And you provided enough touchstones for me to fumble through learning more. Very much appreciated.
I got the idea that electrons = photons from camera sensor descriptions in the popular press. No doubt there was some level of error there, starting with me and possibly extending further. I've parked that idea.:)
You can't really separate the magnetic and electric fields in the far field, in the sense you can't have one blocked and the other propagate as a wave.
Well, that's not really what I was saying; a loop antenna responds very little to electrostatic stimulus; this property makes it highly immune to local noise. Instead, it responds to the magnetic field, which tends to not be large in comparison for low energy local sources. Switching antenna types to a loop can and does result in noise levels dropping very significantly, and signals appearing that were previously completely buried in said noise. So both fields are there, but detecting the one doesn't have to involve detecting the other, and therefore the reception achieved can be said to be specifically of the magnetic component. Which I didn't understand to be composed of particles, as you have explained. Now that you have explained it, I understand the process to be an exchange of particles, and so that answers my original question - how is [idea in TFS] different than radio. Answer being, no particle exchange vs. particle exchange. That about sum it up?
There are two basic ways to build yourself a radio antenna.
One responds to electrostatics; this, generally speaking, is electron, or photon activation - electrons in the antenna move because the applied charge across the antenna varies. This is ambient electron pressure varying as a function of the radio signal. This results in push-pull down the antenna cable, and it's amplified at the receiver, etc.
The other responds to magnetic fields. Not ambient electron pressure. A loop antenna is a classic example of that, and it's why I used it in my example.
Radio is an electro-magnetic phenomenon. EM for short. Electricity (electron flow and potential) is not the same as magnetism. Either one can induce the other. But they are not the same. And the claim that magnetism is photons... I just don't understand how that could describe reality. Unless photons ignore solid objects, and everything I've ever experienced (again, not a physicist or anything approaching one) tells me they don't. Electrons - photons in another life - stop at insulators. They don't transit them. Whereas magnetism is well known to do exactly that, and with zero trouble. Or so I conceived of it all until today.
So... the statement "magnetism is photons" makes no sense to me because radio goes right through very dense insulating materials, generally speaking. Materials that, for instance, the photons from my flashlight will not. Even if it's hella bright. Further, there is so little energy in radio waves that are nonetheless receivable, the idea of them (meaning photons) transiting a dense, thoroughly opaque substance with no particular attenuation is notionally counterintuitive to me. Which still doesn't mean it's wrong (see (a), below.) I can tell you for a fact that the magnetic component of radio waves do this, though. Which, it seems to me, implies that magnetic waves are not photons doing... well, whatever.
I have read all the answers and either (a) I am missing so much of the underlying physics information (most likely) that I cannot understand it, or (b) it hasn't actually been explained yet, or (c) the entire idea is somehow misdescribed so I *can't* understand it, but it's really something, just something else.
If I'm 11000 miles from someone's radio transmitter, waves of magnetism induce electron movement in my local loop antenna (this description applies only to loop antennas.) The only particles -- electrons -- I'm dealing with are local. The particle movement is not induced by electrons that travelled from the source to my antenna. Magnetism isn't carried by particles. Right? Because it goes right through non-ferrous solid objects.
Light is just radio at a really high frequency, as far I understand it. Which may not be all that far.:)
Anyway, shine a light, induce particle movement at the receiver by detecting the waves...
Sounds like radio. What am I missing? There must be something, or this wouldn't be news.
I consider that a fundamental oxymoron. This is an area where significant amounts of the "art" consist of fad-driven guesswork in the form of (often really bad) metaphor, and worse, one in which the fads change quite rapidly. The most reliable aspect of it is statistical behavioral analysis. The rest... religion, pretty much.
As to the future, and superstition's role in it: I will wait and see what actually happens. Within that context, I dare to hope that some of the self-inflicted delusion will go away. I could certainly be wrong. But that is my hope at this time.
Understanding science to a level that divests one of most or all superstitious victimization only requires three things:
1) Understanding that there are experts who do science
2) Understanding the scientific method
3) Understanding that technology is the arm that uses science
If you can wrap your head around those things, you'll be able to ignore superstition; worst case, a few minutes quick work on a search engine will reveal if there is peer-review science, or just blather, on any particular subject. And if related technology is on record or in play.
You don't have to be a scientist in, or be highly familiar with, any particular science, to realize that pretty much everything around you came about due to actual science, and was brought to useful levels by technology, science's strong arm of implementation. You just have to understand the process. 1, 2, 3 as above.
Unlike most of history, the information required to understand what is actually going on is now a few keystrokes away in developed countries. That's what is closing the window of ignorance so much faster.
I also suspect that in the relatively near future, historically speaking, we'll be able to produce kids that are not gullible, stupid, or lacking in the ability to employ critical thinking. At that point, producing another human being without these capacities will render them highly non-competitive right out of the... gate, and parents won't generally buy into that. It's hand-waving at this point, I fully admit, but it seems to me that the seeds of this are sprouting all around us.
What this is, I suspect, is the Catholic leadership realizing that the window of ignorance is just about to close on their fingers, so they're scrambling a bit to retrench a little further outside of their normal run of indoctrination.
It seems inevitable if a particular branch of theism wishes to survive much longer outside of third-world countries. Not much room for superstition remains outside of the ever-shrinking classes of the susceptible.
I think we all would all know the difference between reasonable criticism and hate speech
Sure. The former is stuff people say that doesn't offend you, so you don't perceive it as hateful. The latter is stuff people say that offends you, so you perceive it as hateful.
Now, me... religious speech severely offends me. I find it hateful by its very nature. Anything constructed in the image of "my imaginary friend says you must... [FITB]" is something I react to as an attack on sanity, liberty, and manners. Such attacks are hateful. Period. Now:
Do you think I should be able to tell others not to speak about such things?
I will spoil the suspense: I should not be able to do that. Nor should anyone else be able to tell me what I may say, or may not say. Anywhere. Any country that so indulges its whims has foundered on a major rock of failure. To be blunt, they're being stupid.
But in practice the only "rights" you've got are those which others will fight to defend
Well, sometimes, and/or perhaps elsewhere, but mostly here in the USA, it's this:
In practice the only "rights" you've got are those which you can afford to pay others to fight to defend.
That's the overriding reality, unless you're one of the very fortunate few the ACLU or similar decides to use as a lever on some issue they have a contrary (to the system's) viewpoint on.
Of course that doesn't mean the fight will succeed. Particularly when congress and/or the judiciary are in receipt of more effective motivation than your defense turns out to provide.
With Birth Rates declining, there are only two real avenues of providing a sustainable Economy. Importation of young Workers, poorly paid, heavily taxed, and with no plans for retiring here as Residents, which is already happening, or raising the minimum Retirement Age to say 80 or so.
The advent of learning systems – very smart, but not conscious – into manufacturing and service automation will (and is beginning to already) move the bar so far, so fast, that a paradigm shift in what "the working economy" actually is will occur within just a few years, leaving pretty much everyone – imported workers, native workers, educated workers, uneducated workers, skilled workers, unskilled workers – without paying jobs.
What "money" is will be changed by the government, along with who gets what, and why. They must change. Either that, or there will be a revolution and the government will fall, along with pretty much everything else.
Learning systems' application to production and service is not like previous technological / economic change. At all. These systems will enter every corner of the economy and underprice all expensive human jobs. The tip of the iceberg is already visible. The job/citizen connection will inevitably be sundered; the money/goods-services connection must change by then (or sooner) or we will see a very sudden disaster that no one wants.
A Scientist might say that you could get cancer from, you know, carcinogens, so they should be removed from cigarettes, or cigarettes should be not sold to children who are not assumed able to make informed decisions. Or pregnant women. Or stupid people.
An industry expect would say, sure, but we have this cute camel, see, and the kids love it, and besides, no one wants to hear that shit about cancer, so we'll just keep on keeping on, eh? Which is exactly what they did.
THAT is what happens when there is no scientific oversight with punch.
Science brought you everything good you have. Science is the dirt technology grows in. Unscientific hand-waving is the dirt that lung cancer from cigarettes and tailpipes and dirty coal power plants grows in.
Well America, you voted for this clown and gave support to his enablers
We (the plurality) voted for Clinton. By almost 3 million votes. Trump lost the vote of the citizens.
A very small group, specifically the electoral college, put Trump in there. The voters didn't. It's a technical win at best. What it isn't is an indication that he actually won the hearts and minds of the US population. He didn't. He still hasn't. There's no sign he ever will.
Why do people think, that men and woman must perform different in -every task-?
Because they generally do, that's why. They have far superior ability to look at more than one issue at once as compared to men on average (makes them great fighter pilots, for instance, really good in furballs), makes them really good at keeping track of kids while doing other things, makes them really good at lots of things, actually.
Because they are physically radically different in their frame and strength. For instance, this makes it tougher on them in furballs because of g forces.
Because they have different emotional courses and hormone baths, and in addition, a monthly emotional roller-coaster that men don't.
Because the pressures on them in an intersex environment are (very) different.
And so on.
Denying reality is the siren song of the racist and the equality uber alles folk, the misogynist and the feminist. All would be far better off if they'd stop it. The sexes are radically different.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there are very few areas where whatever capacity there is, isn't considerably more available at night. Because almost everyone is asleep, it's cooler, A/C loads are down, and not much else is going on. And of course, there is plenty of solar waiting to be tapped, etc. once they work out a way to store it half-decently. Sure, it won't be perfect. But you know what? The nearest city in my state is 290 miles away, and the three gas stations are arranged along that trip at 70 miles, 210 miles, and 230 miles respectively -- then finally in the city there's plenty. Underserved areas are nothing new. It won't stop the process. Where new capacity needs to appear, it will. Eventually. Even if my area doesn't get enough power in the right places right away, most everywhere else will. But you know what? While they have to truck fuel to us, we have a huge dam 20 miles from here with a couple huge hydro generators. So I might do better than one might think. The trick is that 290 mile drive... need a vehicle that can do that with the heat or AC running, lights on, etc. Nothing like that on the radar. Yet.
Perhaps we can even stop wasting so much power blotting out the night sky with all those damned streetlights. Who knows? Perhaps the nation's kids will be generally able to see the stars again. It's a nice thought, anyway.
Also, just as sort of a postscript, lighting, even fairly high powered lighting, is transitioning to a considerably less greedy tech, LEDs. Power consumption of a converted light source is way down. Things like that, applied nationally, will also have positive effects on available power, even if the paranoid keep the streetlights on forever.
Don't worry. Power's not going to be the showstopper. Unless we can get around it somehow, it'll be storage that bites us all in the posterior. Because right now batteries, in a word, suck.
Not arguing about the time frame - seems optimistic to me - but:
Many of these vehicles will be able to adequately charge at home, at night, when the grid is considerably unloaded as compared to the day - it's a perfectly reasonable scenario. Most of us rest at night. Most of those vehicles won't be going on long trips on any given day, and so most of them won't even need that much of a charge. You'll see charging stations where you're used to seeing parking meters in cities and towns, too.
The idea that there's insufficient infrastructure to handle a fleet composed of mostly electric vehicles is almost entirely wrong. And for the high-charge, long-haul requirements, those waystations can be built the same way: pick up energy at night, hand it out 24/7. Most of this is just engineering.
The real problem right now is batteries, or energy storage in the car. Expensive, short-lived, toxic, heavy, and simply not enough of them. When and if that's solved, EVs will come into their own. Not before. Right now they are a wealthy person's toy. 30 grand for what amounts to a VW bug, only with less Hitler.
Nope, not that generous any more. Plus, I no longer have a paper tape reader. :) I'll probably sell it someday, so it doesn't get lost in some relative's WTF box at the time of my death.
However, I did write a complete emulation of the 6809 and the Flex OS, which you can get from here, if you're so inclined. It's a few years later than the paper tape, but on the other hand, it's hugely more capable, just as one might expect. Plus, the 6809 is a dream to program, unlike any other microprocessor of its vintage, or prior.
Teletypes? Luxury! We had switches we used to load programs! And perfectly good incandescent status bulbs to read the output on! Later, we got paper tape punches and readers, and we were so happy!
==> ...still has copy of Tiny Basic on oiled paper tape, safe in a film canister
They don't need (and I really wish they would not consider) a case redesign. The 2008/2009 cases were (still are) fabulous. Great cooling, hugely serviceable, expandable, plenty of room for drives, rackable, plenty of I/O, good looking, tough, quiet, reasonably secure...
All they actually need to do is abandon that trashcan thing as a (really) bad idea and cook up a new tower-fitting motherboard, for which I have no doubt whatsoever Intel has readily available sample electrical designs, add the I/O sauce of the day to it, change a few cutouts for the case to match, and ship the damn thing.
That whole "sometime in 2018" could mean they're going to do something "courageous" again. Otherwise there's little excuse for the timing. Well, unless they're not starting until 2018. Which might be the case. [lies:] No pun intended.
It's possible the new "courage" will be something worthy, but based on the trashcan and the headphone screwups and the lack of wired networks on various models and the withering of the mini's capabilities... I think "courage" has failed them as far as actually making something, you know, better. I just wish they would go back to the tower. Maybe pop out a mid-tower for the masses, too.
Here's hoping. I'd almost certainly buy a new mac pro with current CPU and (upgradable) GPU hardware and upgradable memory and drives and so on. Unless they screw it up. Again.
I write software. Generally non-trivial application software. For instance, this is something I'm working on, and have been for some years now.
I have been fixing products for years as the bugs / errors were found. For free. Usually within hours or at most, days. I feel really good about it. For my commercial work, I charge for new features and keeping up with OS malfuckery. Not for my own errors. I am also very careful to maintain maximum compatibility with various OS releases -- rather than using the new OS features, I concentrate on using as few OS features as possible; and when they break I write my own if at all possible, thereby eliminating the dependence on the now-broken OS feature. For instance, at some point Apple's OS X file dialog began hanging the system when opened, which is pretty much a death sentence for real time signal processing software. So I wrote my own. No more hangs, plus it has some cool features the OS X dialog doesn't -- and it's highly unlikely to break, because it is coupled in as limited a manner as I could manage to OS X. But if it does, I'll fix it.
I am willing to put my best efforts forward fix every bug I can find that is "mine." I work around OS bugs if and when I manage to figure out how. I keep my documentation up to date, basically the same philosophy applies there: the docs should be as "right" as I can make them. I wrote my own documentation system to make sure I could keep control of that without my work becoming roadkill consequent to the "next cool thing" WRT someone else's documentation system.
Again: perfectly content with this. I like keeping my work as current as possible and as reliable and accurately represented as possible. I sleep very well because of it.
If the vehicle was defective with regard to features and/or capabilities touted at the time of sale, then in my opinion -- and I agree, not the law's, but the law is often bad and/or wrong, and I submit that this is one of those cases -- then the manufacturer should remain on the hook. That's not about wear; it's about it being what they said it was at the time of sale. If it isn't what they said it was, then they either owe a fix, or a refund. Simple fix: Don't sell stuff you aren't willing to put your best efforts into. I don't find that to be any problem. Then again, I'm the boss, so I get to say that. I don't need the law to tell me to do that, I do it because I am confident that it is the right thing to do.
Apples and oranges. I'm not talking about something wearing out. I'm talking about it being supplied in a defective state.
1) Company sells you a home, claims has full basement ...yes, even if it takes you fifty years to figure it out, they should still be on the hook for the deceit and the consequences of that deceit.
2) You buy it
3) Turns out there's no basement
Again, simple fix: Don't DO stuff like that.
How about "my software doesn't work on your new stuff"? Where's the negative attribute there? Eh?
Here's my view: If you sell a product, you should fix any bugs or non-performance issues that relate to claims made when you sold it. Application, OS, driver, etc.
An example:
Let's say you sell me a product, version N, on the basis that it loads images, allows me to apply various image processing operations including contrast, and then save the resulting changed image.
Later -- even much later -- I discover that the contrast operation doesn't work. You're still selling the product, and you've fixed the problem (so in such a case, we know you *can* fix the problem) but now it's on version N+X, and you want me to buy an upgrade to get a working contrast operation.
It is my position that either you should fix it, provide me with the upgrade at no charge to remedy your screwup (which some OS vendors will do, Apple, for instance), and your upgrade must in no way take away any advertised capability I already bought from you, or which depends on APIs you published, or: you should give me my money back.
If you won't fix the problem, I see that as you having sold me a product under false pretenses. You said it would work: it doesn't. You won't fix it.
What I don't see as reasonable is basically selling broken stuff and then expecting everyone to accept that. If you sell me a defective chair, house or swing-set, I expect you to fix it to the best of your ability. If you sell me defective software, I expect you to fix that to the same degree.
This whole "I'm selling you two things: broken software and a big fuck you" is a bad idea, and leaves a huge trail of broken and incompatible shit around for everyone to deal with.
There's more to this, but it all boils down to a presumption of "abandonment is okay" that I see as almost always a sign of ethically bankrupt management. Not always. But usually. Certainly in every case where the software in question won't / can't do what it claimed it would.
Thank you. Although I have no great depth in the areas you're describing, you did provide a coherent framework that gives me some idea what might be happening. And you provided enough touchstones for me to fumble through learning more. Very much appreciated.
I got the idea that electrons = photons from camera sensor descriptions in the popular press. No doubt there was some level of error there, starting with me and possibly extending further. I've parked that idea. :)
Well, that's not really what I was saying; a loop antenna responds very little to electrostatic stimulus; this property makes it highly immune to local noise. Instead, it responds to the magnetic field, which tends to not be large in comparison for low energy local sources. Switching antenna types to a loop can and does result in noise levels dropping very significantly, and signals appearing that were previously completely buried in said noise. So both fields are there, but detecting the one doesn't have to involve detecting the other, and therefore the reception achieved can be said to be specifically of the magnetic component. Which I didn't understand to be composed of particles, as you have explained. Now that you have explained it, I understand the process to be an exchange of particles, and so that answers my original question - how is [idea in TFS] different than radio. Answer being, no particle exchange vs. particle exchange. That about sum it up?
There are two basic ways to build yourself a radio antenna.
One responds to electrostatics; this, generally speaking, is electron, or photon activation - electrons in the antenna move because the applied charge across the antenna varies. This is ambient electron pressure varying as a function of the radio signal. This results in push-pull down the antenna cable, and it's amplified at the receiver, etc.
The other responds to magnetic fields. Not ambient electron pressure. A loop antenna is a classic example of that, and it's why I used it in my example.
Radio is an electro-magnetic phenomenon. EM for short. Electricity (electron flow and potential) is not the same as magnetism. Either one can induce the other. But they are not the same. And the claim that magnetism is photons... I just don't understand how that could describe reality. Unless photons ignore solid objects, and everything I've ever experienced (again, not a physicist or anything approaching one) tells me they don't. Electrons - photons in another life - stop at insulators. They don't transit them. Whereas magnetism is well known to do exactly that, and with zero trouble. Or so I conceived of it all until today.
So... the statement "magnetism is photons" makes no sense to me because radio goes right through very dense insulating materials, generally speaking. Materials that, for instance, the photons from my flashlight will not. Even if it's hella bright. Further, there is so little energy in radio waves that are nonetheless receivable, the idea of them (meaning photons) transiting a dense, thoroughly opaque substance with no particular attenuation is notionally counterintuitive to me. Which still doesn't mean it's wrong (see (a), below.) I can tell you for a fact that the magnetic component of radio waves do this, though. Which, it seems to me, implies that magnetic waves are not photons doing... well, whatever.
I have read all the answers and either (a) I am missing so much of the underlying physics information (most likely) that I cannot understand it, or (b) it hasn't actually been explained yet, or (c) the entire idea is somehow misdescribed so I *can't* understand it, but it's really something, just something else.
How is this different than radio?
If I'm 11000 miles from someone's radio transmitter, waves of magnetism induce electron movement in my local loop antenna (this description applies only to loop antennas.) The only particles -- electrons -- I'm dealing with are local. The particle movement is not induced by electrons that travelled from the source to my antenna. Magnetism isn't carried by particles. Right? Because it goes right through non-ferrous solid objects.
Light is just radio at a really high frequency, as far I understand it. Which may not be all that far. :)
Anyway, shine a light, induce particle movement at the receiver by detecting the waves...
Sounds like radio. What am I missing? There must be something, or this wouldn't be news.
--[not a physicist]
I consider that a fundamental oxymoron. This is an area where significant amounts of the "art" consist of fad-driven guesswork in the form of (often really bad) metaphor, and worse, one in which the fads change quite rapidly. The most reliable aspect of it is statistical behavioral analysis. The rest... religion, pretty much.
As to the future, and superstition's role in it: I will wait and see what actually happens. Within that context, I dare to hope that some of the self-inflicted delusion will go away. I could certainly be wrong. But that is my hope at this time.
Understanding science to a level that divests one of most or all superstitious victimization only requires three things:
1) Understanding that there are experts who do science
2) Understanding the scientific method
3) Understanding that technology is the arm that uses science
If you can wrap your head around those things, you'll be able to ignore superstition; worst case, a few minutes quick work on a search engine will reveal if there is peer-review science, or just blather, on any particular subject. And if related technology is on record or in play.
You don't have to be a scientist in, or be highly familiar with, any particular science, to realize that pretty much everything around you came about due to actual science, and was brought to useful levels by technology, science's strong arm of implementation. You just have to understand the process. 1, 2, 3 as above.
Unlike most of history, the information required to understand what is actually going on is now a few keystrokes away in developed countries. That's what is closing the window of ignorance so much faster.
I also suspect that in the relatively near future, historically speaking, we'll be able to produce kids that are not gullible, stupid, or lacking in the ability to employ critical thinking. At that point, producing another human being without these capacities will render them highly non-competitive right out of the... gate, and parents won't generally buy into that. It's hand-waving at this point, I fully admit, but it seems to me that the seeds of this are sprouting all around us.
What this is, I suspect, is the Catholic leadership realizing that the window of ignorance is just about to close on their fingers, so they're scrambling a bit to retrench a little further outside of their normal run of indoctrination.
It seems inevitable if a particular branch of theism wishes to survive much longer outside of third-world countries. Not much room for superstition remains outside of the ever-shrinking classes of the susceptible.
Sure. The former is stuff people say that doesn't offend you, so you don't perceive it as hateful. The latter is stuff people say that offends you, so you perceive it as hateful.
Now, me... religious speech severely offends me. I find it hateful by its very nature. Anything constructed in the image of "my imaginary friend says you must... [FITB]" is something I react to as an attack on sanity, liberty, and manners. Such attacks are hateful. Period. Now:
Do you think I should be able to tell others not to speak about such things?
I will spoil the suspense: I should not be able to do that. Nor should anyone else be able to tell me what I may say, or may not say. Anywhere. Any country that so indulges its whims has foundered on a major rock of failure. To be blunt, they're being stupid.
Well, sometimes, and/or perhaps elsewhere, but mostly here in the USA, it's this:
That's the overriding reality, unless you're one of the very fortunate few the ACLU or similar decides to use as a lever on some issue they have a contrary (to the system's) viewpoint on.
Of course that doesn't mean the fight will succeed. Particularly when congress and/or the judiciary are in receipt of more effective motivation than your defense turns out to provide.
This kind of humor is truly a gas. Please come back oven and provide more.
Still couldn't be done. "Worldwide" != "EU."
The ruling as described in TFS isn't just wrong. It's outright stupid.
The advent of learning systems – very smart, but not conscious – into manufacturing and service automation will (and is beginning to already) move the bar so far, so fast, that a paradigm shift in what "the working economy" actually is will occur within just a few years, leaving pretty much everyone – imported workers, native workers, educated workers, uneducated workers, skilled workers, unskilled workers – without paying jobs.
What "money" is will be changed by the government, along with who gets what, and why. They must change. Either that, or there will be a revolution and the government will fall, along with pretty much everything else.
Learning systems' application to production and service is not like previous technological / economic change. At all. These systems will enter every corner of the economy and underprice all expensive human jobs. The tip of the iceberg is already visible. The job/citizen connection will inevitably be sundered; the money/goods-services connection must change by then (or sooner) or we will see a very sudden disaster that no one wants.
Avatar was fiction, you know.
A Scientist might say that you could get cancer from, you know, carcinogens, so they should be removed from cigarettes, or cigarettes should be not sold to children who are not assumed able to make informed decisions. Or pregnant women. Or stupid people.
An industry expect would say, sure, but we have this cute camel, see, and the kids love it, and besides, no one wants to hear that shit about cancer, so we'll just keep on keeping on, eh? Which is exactly what they did.
THAT is what happens when there is no scientific oversight with punch.
Science brought you everything good you have. Science is the dirt technology grows in. Unscientific hand-waving is the dirt that lung cancer from cigarettes and tailpipes and dirty coal power plants grows in.
We (the plurality) voted for Clinton. By almost 3 million votes. Trump lost the vote of the citizens.
A very small group, specifically the electoral college, put Trump in there. The voters didn't. It's a technical win at best. What it isn't is an indication that he actually won the hearts and minds of the US population. He didn't. He still hasn't. There's no sign he ever will.
Because they generally do, that's why. They have far superior ability to look at more than one issue at once as compared to men on average (makes them great fighter pilots, for instance, really good in furballs), makes them really good at keeping track of kids while doing other things, makes them really good at lots of things, actually.
Because they are physically radically different in their frame and strength. For instance, this makes it tougher on them in furballs because of g forces.
Because they have different emotional courses and hormone baths, and in addition, a monthly emotional roller-coaster that men don't.
Because the pressures on them in an intersex environment are (very) different.
And so on.
Denying reality is the siren song of the racist and the equality uber alles folk, the misogynist and the feminist. All would be far better off if they'd stop it. The sexes are radically different.
It's not a matter of what you care about. It's a matter of generating slums.
Yes. Hell for the poor, the unskilled, the handicapped, the classed to the bottom by social or governmental ostracism, the simply unlucky.
Proud of it, are you?
Nope. The top 10% hold 76% of the wealth. And the top 10% are nowhere near being "middle class."
Try again. This time with numbers.