What if it were tacked onto the end of the hash? So your hash would look like
071883abcdef18234760abdefcd38f387bc93-78b
And 78b would be the size of the file. Not being a cryptologist, not even remotely, I am probably missing something quite simple and obvious here, but at first glance it seems like this would work.
On the other hand we don't really have any good evidence or theories that can explain recent warming in terms of natural phenomena at the moment. To me that means that, barring new evidence to the contrary, I'm going to have to lean rather more toward the anthropogenic causes camp.
Based on my experiences in high energy physics (seeing how rare it is for theorists to come up with good effective models before there is an awful lot of experimental data in front of them), I'd have to say it probably makes more sense to lean toward the "our long-term climate models are based on very little reliable data and are therefore likely to be complete crap" camp. Do the studies you like to cite which attempt to attribute observed climate data to various models (anthropogenic and otherwise) include uncertainties on their theoretical natural climate models? If so, what are they? Once again, I could read the study, but it is probably much faster to ask you. If you don't know then I will try to find the time to read the study myself.
How effective is the IPCC at predicting natural climate changes? How have they tested their climate models? What kind of statistics are they getting? I'm sure I could read the paper and find out, but it is probably quicker to ask, since you already know so much about it.
Yep. In order for "the culprit may be global warming" to qualify as an explanation, you'd have to detail just how you think global warming would have anything to do with this.
How has additional 'exposure' to something ever prevented someone from learning it?
If the "exposure" is poorly done, it can set up a negative reaction to the topic, so that anytime it is mentioned, the person becomes afraid. A whole lot of people react that way to math, and the more math they see, the more they get a mental block set up against it. And I don't trust public schools to manage this "exposure" well. My little sister's high school geometry teacher (in an honors class, too) told them that proofs are "the worst part" of geometry. Considering that geometry is the first real math they will have seen, the teacher absolutely shouldn't be prejudicing the kids against it. Enough people are afraid of math as it is, and now 30 more have learned to dread proofs due to poorly handled "exposure".
On a silly note, additional "exposure" to sub-freezing temperatures, or oxygen deficient atmospheres, can easily prevent someone from learning much about them. It simply kills them.
For it to be the case, an enormous acceleration (requiring, of course, a proportionally enormous force) would have to be present initially, followed by a comparably large acceleration in the other direction to slow the limb down to a more normal speed.
Indeed, it's exactly what I was saying. I am not talking about a large initial average movement of the whole limb, but rather a large initial movement (a tiny twitch) detectable before the "large acceleration in the other direction to slow down the limb" happens --because of the presence of the limb.
However, in this case, the ant's entire jaw (entire limb) moved. But you seem to think that if it were to move farther (I suppose by cutting it off of the ant's head, in a vacuum on the space station (free fall and no air resistance), a bare instant before it would normally impact the opposing jaw) that it would slow down? I think that this is not the case. If it were, then Newton's first law would be wrong, and due neither to quantum mechanics nor to relativity. Now, granted, they most likely measured the speed at the tip of the jaw, where the range of motion is the greatest, so the entire jaw did not move with the same speed, but neither does a pitcher's arm as he throws a 90mph fastball. Near his shoulder, his arm moves quite slowly. This is normal lever action.
I do not think that this measurement is at all qualitatively different from a measurement of the speed of the 90mph fastball pitcher's hand. Well, it is in one sense, but one which makes it more, rather than less, remarkable. This measurement was an average over the full course of movement, rather than a measurement of the maximum speed attained (as in the case of the pitcher). The maximum is at least as great as the average, nearly always greater.
Am I getting my physics right?
It is nearly impossible to tell, as everything is so jumbled up. You seem to be saying that a small portion of a limb will accelerate enormously and then slow down as the energy of motion is transferred to the rest of the limb. I'm not so convinced that this is the case, as bones and exoskeletons are quite rigid, but for the sake of argument, I'll concede that. However, I don't see what this has to do with anything. The ant's entire jaw moved, so there is no "more limb" left to slow it down. But then, you also seem to be saying that a smaller mass requires less force to accelerate. This is quite, true, but once again I don't see that it makes any difference. The record is not a force record, nor an energy release record, but a speed record. The ant's (entire) jaw moved with a speed greater than any previously known self-powered biological motion in an animal. Perhaps if you did measure the motion of a tiny portion of a human arm in the first.13 ms of motion, it would match this record, but it would be a qualitatively different measurement. The measurement of the ant's jaw measured an entire limb moving through its entire range of movement. It was fast. Neither the force nor the energy involved was record setting, but who cares? Nobody claimed they were. The speed was.
In the nuclear planets game, no this would not be significant. However, the nuclear planets game, as you have described it, seems to be about energy released (the fastest bowling ball speed attained in this manner, where bowling balls are all the same mass), but that is not at all what the measurement was about.
The ant's jaw is most like the guy who propels a small asteroid at high speed in the nuclear planets game. He does attain a speed record, even though he doesn't release as much energy as the guy who moves our moon at half that speed. So no, he isn't some new superplayer in the nuclear planets game, but that is because the nuclear planets game doesn't seem to be about speed records as you've described it, but about energy release records. However, since the entire jaw of the ant mov
After all, Mercury, Luna and Pluto are more like each other than either is like Venus, Earth or Titan. This by itself tells us that "planet" can't be a very useful term for any technical purposes.
The real numbers under multiplication are more like the integers under multiplication than either is like SU(3). However, "group" is still a very useful term for a technical purpose (mathematics).
Oohhhh, I hope they make it better than 75Hz. I'm particularly sensitive to flicker, and 75Hz refresh hurts (no pun intended) my head. In my experience, 85Hz is good enough for me, but since most CRTs jump from 75Hz to 80Hz with nothing in between, I'm not sure where the cutoff is.
Well, I am pleased to make your acquaintance, kind sir. Do you know Matthew Jones? He is a professor at Purdue, researching High Energy Physics, which is my field. I have worked with him some at Fermilab in Chicago.
I can't quite puzzle out from your two posts quite what you intended to say. Could you clarify?
It seems that you are suggesting that if one measures the magnitude of the velocity (that is, the speed) in the first.13 ms of motion of an animal's limb, that the value found then will be much higher than the average value for the entire movement. This is a rather puzzling assertion, as it is extremely unlikely to be the case in general. For it to be the case, an enormous acceleration (requiring, of course, a proportionally enormous force) would have to be present initially, followed by a comparably large acceleration in the other direction to slow the limb down to a more normal speed.
Perhaps what you meant was that the jerk (or even the jerk averaged over time) is quite high in the initial moments of motion. This is much more likely, as there is usually a quite swift change from no acceleration to great acceleration, and then the great acceleration is maintained for some time. Jerk, as you know, is the rate of change of acceleration, so if we go from no acceleration to great acceleration very quickly, the jerk is quite high.
If neither of these are what you meant, please clarify. I'm sure I've simply misunderstood something.
Modern physics maintains that bodies move for no reason at all,
Really? I wasn't aware of that. (IAAPhysicist) Perhaps you could elaborate.
It follows that we are immersed and move within an immense lattice of highly energetic particles.
Oh, like the luminiferous aether? Something like that comes with all sorts of associated problems. Not a theory incorporating such a medium is untenable, but it would require an awful lot of wrangling that has been found to be unnecessary.
Also, how exactly are you "putting your money" on it? And does it actually give you any legitimate cause to laugh?
No! The thing about vacuum energy is that it is the energy of the vacuum, that is, there do not exist any lower energy states! Therefore, you cannot "harness" it, or "remove it from the vacuum" or anything like that, because to do so would be to make the vacuum more of a vacuum than it already is. This is according to Quantum Field Theory, which predicted the existence of vacuum energy in the first place. So this idea of harnessing the vacuum energy directly contradicts not only the theory which predicted it in the first place, but also the very idea of it being "vacuum" energy. PS: IAAPhysicist.
I'm curious. Where is this improperly shielded nuclear reactor? Something should be done about it, as shielding for nuclear reactors has really reached the point of triviality (that is, it is a solved problem).
I can't use CRTs (for computer monitors, TVs I'm fine with) because of the flicker. For whatever reason, I can see some lights flickering that look steady to other people. What's worse is that those particular frequencies that I can see but others cannot give me pounding headaches in almost no time at all. For instance, there is an elevator in one of our parking garages that has a flickering flourescent light, and in the time it takes to get from floor 2 to floor 1 (about 5-10 seconds), if I don't close my eyes, I get off the elevator with a nasty headache. Perhaps CRT TVs are far enough away that it is not a problem, but most CRT computer monitors have the same effect on me, although not quite as quickly as that elevator light. If I get the refresh rate up to around 85Hz or so, I am usually ok, but at that rate, most monitors get blurry, which is almost as bad.
I got an LCD monitor a few years ago, and I wouldn't trade it for a CRT unless you paid me enough money to go out and buy a new LCD to replace the crap CRT.
Also, being in college, and moving from Texas to Chicago and back every summer for my summer job, the smaller size is an enormous advantage. My LCD has survived those years of being bumped around while moving in and out of dorm rooms, apartments, and houses, sitting in the car in the Texas heat (120 degrees in a car in the sun, easy) for a week, and no fading or burn in (like a lot of CRTs I've seen), no blurring (like a lot of other CRTs I've seen), no image distortion due to a curious kid playing with a magnet on it (I would like to claim no responsibility for that poor CRT... ahem!). In other words, my LCD still looks damn good, despite its fair share of abuse and age.
Precisely. But nobody would buy bellbottoms, because OMGWTFBBQ that's soooo 70s. But flareleg jeans, which are exactly the same, sold. So in one sense the projection of bellbottoms coming back was wrong, because you can't go to the store and pick up "bellbottom jeans". But you can get the same thing under a different name, so the projection was right in another sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, kind sir, for lightening the mood and my day. That was, for no apparent reason, hilarious.
What if it were tacked onto the end of the hash? So your hash would look like
071883abcdef18234760abdefcd38f387bc93-78b
And 78b would be the size of the file. Not being a cryptologist, not even remotely, I am probably missing something quite simple and obvious here, but at first glance it seems like this would work.
How effective is the IPCC at predicting natural climate changes? How have they tested their climate models? What kind of statistics are they getting? I'm sure I could read the paper and find out, but it is probably quicker to ask, since you already know so much about it.
On a silly note, additional "exposure" to sub-freezing temperatures, or oxygen deficient atmospheres, can easily prevent someone from learning much about them. It simply kills them.
ACK! You can KISS ballmer if you want to, but I'll stick to my fiancee, thank you very much.
However, in this case, the ant's entire jaw (entire limb) moved. But you seem to think that if it were to move farther (I suppose by cutting it off of the ant's head, in a vacuum on the space station (free fall and no air resistance), a bare instant before it would normally impact the opposing jaw) that it would slow down? I think that this is not the case. If it were, then Newton's first law would be wrong, and due neither to quantum mechanics nor to relativity. Now, granted, they most likely measured the speed at the tip of the jaw, where the range of motion is the greatest, so the entire jaw did not move with the same speed, but neither does a pitcher's arm as he throws a 90mph fastball. Near his shoulder, his arm moves quite slowly. This is normal lever action.
I do not think that this measurement is at all qualitatively different from a measurement of the speed of the 90mph fastball pitcher's hand. Well, it is in one sense, but one which makes it more, rather than less, remarkable. This measurement was an average over the full course of movement, rather than a measurement of the maximum speed attained (as in the case of the pitcher). The maximum is at least as great as the average, nearly always greater.
It is nearly impossible to tell, as everything is so jumbled up. You seem to be saying that a small portion of a limb will accelerate enormously and then slow down as the energy of motion is transferred to the rest of the limb. I'm not so convinced that this is the case, as bones and exoskeletons are quite rigid, but for the sake of argument, I'll concede that. However, I don't see what this has to do with anything. The ant's entire jaw moved, so there is no "more limb" left to slow it down. But then, you also seem to be saying that a smaller mass requires less force to accelerate. This is quite, true, but once again I don't see that it makes any difference. The record is not a force record, nor an energy release record, but a speed record. The ant's (entire) jaw moved with a speed greater than any previously known self-powered biological motion in an animal. Perhaps if you did measure the motion of a tiny portion of a human arm in the first .13 ms of motion, it would match this record, but it would be a qualitatively different measurement. The measurement of the ant's jaw measured an entire limb moving through its entire range of movement. It was fast. Neither the force nor the energy involved was record setting, but who cares? Nobody claimed they were. The speed was.
In the nuclear planets game, no this would not be significant. However, the nuclear planets game, as you have described it, seems to be about energy released (the fastest bowling ball speed attained in this manner, where bowling balls are all the same mass), but that is not at all what the measurement was about.
The ant's jaw is most like the guy who propels a small asteroid at high speed in the nuclear planets game. He does attain a speed record, even though he doesn't release as much energy as the guy who moves our moon at half that speed. So no, he isn't some new superplayer in the nuclear planets game, but that is because the nuclear planets game doesn't seem to be about speed records as you've described it, but about energy release records. However, since the entire jaw of the ant mov
Oohhhh, I hope they make it better than 75Hz. I'm particularly sensitive to flicker, and 75Hz refresh hurts (no pun intended) my head. In my experience, 85Hz is good enough for me, but since most CRTs jump from 75Hz to 80Hz with nothing in between, I'm not sure where the cutoff is.
Well, I am pleased to make your acquaintance, kind sir. Do you know Matthew Jones? He is a professor at Purdue, researching High Energy Physics, which is my field. I have worked with him some at Fermilab in Chicago.
I can't quite puzzle out from your two posts quite what you intended to say. Could you clarify?
.13 ms of motion of an animal's limb, that the value found then will be much higher than the average value for the entire movement. This is a rather puzzling assertion, as it is extremely unlikely to be the case in general. For it to be the case, an enormous acceleration (requiring, of course, a proportionally enormous force) would have to be present initially, followed by a comparably large acceleration in the other direction to slow the limb down to a more normal speed.
It seems that you are suggesting that if one measures the magnitude of the velocity (that is, the speed) in the first
Perhaps what you meant was that the jerk (or even the jerk averaged over time) is quite high in the initial moments of motion. This is much more likely, as there is usually a quite swift change from no acceleration to great acceleration, and then the great acceleration is maintained for some time. Jerk, as you know, is the rate of change of acceleration, so if we go from no acceleration to great acceleration very quickly, the jerk is quite high.
If neither of these are what you meant, please clarify. I'm sure I've simply misunderstood something.
Wait a minute. Another Wilson who is a physics student? Where? I'm at Baylor in Texas. Huzzah for shared surnames and also for physicist jokes!
Wow I'm dumb sometimes.
Oh, like the luminiferous aether? Something like that comes with all sorts of associated problems. Not a theory incorporating such a medium is untenable, but it would require an awful lot of wrangling that has been found to be unnecessary.
Also, how exactly are you "putting your money" on it? And does it actually give you any legitimate cause to laugh?
Ah, well said sir. Assuming that everyone catches the impossibility of finding something with less energy than the vacuum.
No! The thing about vacuum energy is that it is the energy of the vacuum, that is, there do not exist any lower energy states! Therefore, you cannot "harness" it, or "remove it from the vacuum" or anything like that, because to do so would be to make the vacuum more of a vacuum than it already is. This is according to Quantum Field Theory, which predicted the existence of vacuum energy in the first place. So this idea of harnessing the vacuum energy directly contradicts not only the theory which predicted it in the first place, but also the very idea of it being "vacuum" energy. PS: IAAPhysicist.
I'm curious. Where is this improperly shielded nuclear reactor? Something should be done about it, as shielding for nuclear reactors has really reached the point of triviality (that is, it is a solved problem).
I can't use CRTs (for computer monitors, TVs I'm fine with) because of the flicker. For whatever reason, I can see some lights flickering that look steady to other people. What's worse is that those particular frequencies that I can see but others cannot give me pounding headaches in almost no time at all. For instance, there is an elevator in one of our parking garages that has a flickering flourescent light, and in the time it takes to get from floor 2 to floor 1 (about 5-10 seconds), if I don't close my eyes, I get off the elevator with a nasty headache. Perhaps CRT TVs are far enough away that it is not a problem, but most CRT computer monitors have the same effect on me, although not quite as quickly as that elevator light. If I get the refresh rate up to around 85Hz or so, I am usually ok, but at that rate, most monitors get blurry, which is almost as bad.
I got an LCD monitor a few years ago, and I wouldn't trade it for a CRT unless you paid me enough money to go out and buy a new LCD to replace the crap CRT.
Also, being in college, and moving from Texas to Chicago and back every summer for my summer job, the smaller size is an enormous advantage. My LCD has survived those years of being bumped around while moving in and out of dorm rooms, apartments, and houses, sitting in the car in the Texas heat (120 degrees in a car in the sun, easy) for a week, and no fading or burn in (like a lot of CRTs I've seen), no blurring (like a lot of other CRTs I've seen), no image distortion due to a curious kid playing with a magnet on it (I would like to claim no responsibility for that poor CRT... ahem!). In other words, my LCD still looks damn good, despite its fair share of abuse and age.
Oh geez. I am an idiot. Thanks for pointing that out!
Precisely. But nobody would buy bellbottoms, because OMGWTFBBQ that's soooo 70s. But flareleg jeans, which are exactly the same, sold. So in one sense the projection of bellbottoms coming back was wrong, because you can't go to the store and pick up "bellbottom jeans". But you can get the same thing under a different name, so the projection was right in another sense.