..."pp cross section" shouldn't be introduced as an abbreviation. Even calling it the "p-p or p+-p+ cross-section would give non-particle-physicists a better idea of what it's talking about.
Referring to the total pp cross section is as everyday in this line of work as it would be for a tech-supporter to ask if the customer had remembered to turn the computer on. Anyone who would ever need to read any part of that paper would know immediately what it means.
2) Why is it important to know the insertion point, the name of the tracking telescopes, or the distance of the Roman Pot stations from IP5 in the abstract? This is very specific information that should be limited to the actual article itself
That abstract manages to convey to me in very few lines the scope of the experiment and the approximate lay-out. If that is not the point of an abstract, then what is?
I am not in TOTEM (other side of the ring) but I understand the abstract just fine and consider it an immensely valuable contribution to the physics programme of the LHC.
These weren't written to be read end to end by the layman. They were meant as reference publications for professionals. I don't know how I would have gotten through my ph.d. without publications like these. Where else do I get the exact layout of the ATLAS semi-conductor tracker? Where else do I look for the muon momentum resolution of CMS vs. ATLAS? I am sorry if you think that renders them incomprehensible but this is what we need.
In all fairness it was a browser vulnerability and in the competition you won the computer you compromised. I would have gone for the Mac as well...;-)
That date is picked from the fact that the accelerator guys tell us they need two months from the end of the beam pipe bake-out (right about this weekend) to get "a circulating beam".
Now, what does this mean?
It means that there are good odds that they will be able to get at least one pilot bunch of protons in stable circulation by that date. We're not talking about the full ~3600 bunches and most important: There will be no beam in the other direction. IOW all we will be doing up until some time November is to do comissioning with beam-gas interactions (there is always residual gas in the beam pipe).
If we're lucky we will have a few weeks of actual collisions this year. I don't want to think of the odds that they will be at anything approaching 10 TeV. 14 TeV is already out of the question due to a couple of bending magnets that can't sustain the current needed.
This press release just shows that management want to report something big. In fact it would probably be better for the accelerator people to commision both beams at the same time but that would of course postpone the big party...
... that hardware is expensive and bandwidth is cheap. So far this has very much not been the case. It is still a pain running remote X-applications over most household broadband connections. In fact I find the lag time annoying even on a LAN.
When do they figure that we will be able to run a "web-based" OS? 'cause it sure isn't anytime soon.
Does it specify "electronic device"? I thought it was just "device", capable of storing digital or analog data.
Sorry for not being thorough. From TFA:
Officers may detain documents and electronic devices, or copies thereof, for a reasonable period of time to perform a thorough
border search. The search may take place on-site or at an off-site location.
Of course if you raise the objection that a credit card magnetic strip is neither a document nor an electronic device I have a hunch that they will
a) Ignore your protests
b) Amend the policy.
I cannot think of a single example where I would want to move sensitive data on a laptop. I may live in a sheltered world but in that world we live in the era of the Internet. If for some reason I wanted to transfer sensitive data across any border, I would think ssh would provide superior security.
Actually I can in a few minutes push quite a lot of encrypted data to four different countries. If I were physically where I wanted the data it would be even easier.
I guess this is just another example of reductions in privacy that solve no problems what so ever...
Well, from TFA and the summary, yes. It applies to any electronic device able to store data. If you have devised a sneaky way of encrypting information into the phone book of your cell phone then they are allowed to detain it "for a reasonable period of time".
Better find a new way to remember those passphrases and PIN codes...
Who's the aggrieved party here? The one who stupidly made the loan, or the one who took advantage of the stupidity (ruining her credit in the process)? Personally, I think the blame falls on the lender, for making such a stupid decision.
Well, I have seen plenty of people behaving like sheep when it comes to credit.
"Well, I can't grasp all this but if they want to lend me the money I guess it is probably OK."
This might be true if you only ever undertake one major mortgage or the like, but when people habitually borrow money because they are allowed I cannot consider them in the least blameless.
Now where did I put that credit card? Daddy needs a new pair of shoes...
Smearing the real names of future competitors? I think not. I would be more than a little surprised if any prospective employer in his/her background check would attach any importance to a statement that the candidate under consideration "should be raped" (from TFA).
First of all the signal to noise ratio on the internet is probably not optimal for stuff like that making it into an executive summary of a background check (disregarding for a second that this particular instance made it to the Washington Post and Wired).
Secondly... well if she's hired after her new boss has read such a statement about her, then perhaps she should just decline the job offer.;-)
Too bad this law only applies to the teaching of science. I would love to see the community's reaction to a satanist social studies teacher bringing "supplementary material" into the classroom.
Hmm there are other models of electroweak symmetry-breaking than the Higgs mechanism, but something is bound to be found. The hard part is going to be convincing people that what you have found is the Higgs. The next hard part is to figure out which Higgs you have found. There is no a priori reason to have only one Higgs boson. If supersymmetry exists you will be looking for not one but five different Higgs bosons (h^0, H^0, A^0, H^+/-).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it's interaction point. :-P
If you bring along a hot chick I'll be happy to show you. Even without the abacus. ;-)
..."pp cross section" shouldn't be introduced as an abbreviation. Even calling it the "p-p or p+-p+ cross-section would give non-particle-physicists a better idea of what it's talking about.
Referring to the total pp cross section is as everyday in this line of work as it would be for a tech-supporter to ask if the customer had remembered to turn the computer on. Anyone who would ever need to read any part of that paper would know immediately what it means.
2) Why is it important to know the insertion point, the name of the tracking telescopes, or the distance of the Roman Pot stations from IP5 in the abstract? This is very specific information that should be limited to the actual article itself
That abstract manages to convey to me in very few lines the scope of the experiment and the approximate lay-out. If that is not the point of an abstract, then what is?
I am not in TOTEM (other side of the ring) but I understand the abstract just fine and consider it an immensely valuable contribution to the physics programme of the LHC.
These weren't written to be read end to end by the layman. They were meant as reference publications for professionals. I don't know how I would have gotten through my ph.d. without publications like these. Where else do I get the exact layout of the ATLAS semi-conductor tracker? Where else do I look for the muon momentum resolution of CMS vs. ATLAS? I am sorry if you think that renders them incomprehensible but this is what we need.
In all fairness it was a browser vulnerability and in the competition you won the computer you compromised. I would have gone for the Mac as well... ;-)
That date is picked from the fact that the accelerator guys tell us they need two months from the end of the beam pipe bake-out (right about this weekend) to get "a circulating beam".
Now, what does this mean?
It means that there are good odds that they will be able to get at least one pilot bunch of protons in stable circulation by that date. We're not talking about the full ~3600 bunches and most important: There will be no beam in the other direction. IOW all we will be doing up until some time November is to do comissioning with beam-gas interactions (there is always residual gas in the beam pipe).
If we're lucky we will have a few weeks of actual collisions this year. I don't want to think of the odds that they will be at anything approaching 10 TeV. 14 TeV is already out of the question due to a couple of bending magnets that can't sustain the current needed.
This press release just shows that management want to report something big. In fact it would probably be better for the accelerator people to commision both beams at the same time but that would of course postpone the big party...
... that hardware is expensive and bandwidth is cheap. So far this has very much not been the case. It is still a pain running remote X-applications over most household broadband connections. In fact I find the lag time annoying even on a LAN.
When do they figure that we will be able to run a "web-based" OS? 'cause it sure isn't anytime soon.
Does it specify "electronic device"? I thought it was just "device", capable of storing digital or analog data.
Sorry for not being thorough. From TFA:
Officers may detain documents and electronic devices, or copies thereof, for a reasonable period of time to perform a thorough border search. The search may take place on-site or at an off-site location.
Of course if you raise the objection that a credit card magnetic strip is neither a document nor an electronic device I have a hunch that they will
a) Ignore your protests
b) Amend the policy.
I cannot think of a single example where I would want to move sensitive data on a laptop. I may live in a sheltered world but in that world we live in the era of the Internet. If for some reason I wanted to transfer sensitive data across any border, I would think ssh would provide superior security.
Actually I can in a few minutes push quite a lot of encrypted data to four different countries. If I were physically where I wanted the data it would be even easier.
I guess this is just another example of reductions in privacy that solve no problems what so ever...
Well, from TFA and the summary, yes. It applies to any electronic device able to store data. If you have devised a sneaky way of encrypting information into the phone book of your cell phone then they are allowed to detain it "for a reasonable period of time".
Better find a new way to remember those passphrases and PIN codes...
Who's the aggrieved party here? The one who stupidly made the loan, or the one who took advantage of the stupidity (ruining her credit in the process)? Personally, I think the blame falls on the lender, for making such a stupid decision.
Well, I have seen plenty of people behaving like sheep when it comes to credit.
"Well, I can't grasp all this but if they want to lend me the money I guess it is probably OK."
This might be true if you only ever undertake one major mortgage or the like, but when people habitually borrow money because they are allowed I cannot consider them in the least blameless.
Now where did I put that credit card? Daddy needs a new pair of shoes...
Smearing the real names of future competitors? I think not. I would be more than a little surprised if any prospective employer in his/her background check would attach any importance to a statement that the candidate under consideration "should be raped" (from TFA). ;-)
First of all the signal to noise ratio on the internet is probably not optimal for stuff like that making it into an executive summary of a background check (disregarding for a second that this particular instance made it to the Washington Post and Wired).
Secondly... well if she's hired after her new boss has read such a statement about her, then perhaps she should just decline the job offer.
Too bad this law only applies to the teaching of science. I would love to see the community's reaction to a satanist social studies teacher bringing "supplementary material" into the classroom.
Hmm there are other models of electroweak symmetry-breaking than the Higgs mechanism, but something is bound to be found. The hard part is going to be convincing people that what you have found is the Higgs. The next hard part is to figure out which Higgs you have found. There is no a priori reason to have only one Higgs boson. If supersymmetry exists you will be looking for not one but five different Higgs bosons (h^0, H^0, A^0, H^+/-).