And I want to own Buckyball magnets. It's my choice, not the government's. Seems like a tyranny to me. You're the gun owner, get out there and water the tree of Liberty with a little blood.
I wasn't attempting to create an argument against the Second Amendment (despite what some pretty mentally retarded moderators think). What I'm saying is that there is a heavy dose of irony to banning the purchase, apparently by any means, of a toy that no one can in fact demonstrate a single documented fatality of, and meanwhile some lunatic can buy enough ammunition for an arsenal. The irony doesn't just cease to exist because of what amounts to an artificial legality in the Constitution. In some ways, it makes the absurdity of how various items, despite actual verifiable risk, can be regulated or not regulated. I think people should be able to own guns and Buckyball magnets and model airplanes and bleach and so on, providing they take the necessary precautions.
But hey, what do I know? Gun sales are way up in Colorado, so I'm assuming gun manufacturers and the NRA are toasting James Holmes as we speak.
Fucking crazy. Some schizophrenic lunatic can buy thousands of rounds of ammunition of the Internet, but God forbid anyone should buy a Buckyball magnet.
Here's the crux of quantum field theory. The particle and the field are the same thing. Like photons and other force mediators, whether you describe it as a particle or as a field, you are talking about an attribute of the same thing.
Bullshit that I'm ignorant regarding Libertarians. I have yet to meet a Libertarian that thinks governments spending tax dollars on projects like LHC is a good idea, claiming, absurdly, that somehow private interests should do it.
If you had read the rest of message, you would have seen that there is a positive point to this. Unless, of course, you're a Libertarian and believe any funding of basic research is theft of your cash to pay evil, lazy scientists.
Read it again. The Higg's Field gives a lot of other particles mass. In quantum field theory, particles and fields are essentially facets of the same phenomena. Thus, the Higg's Field (which is what gives many particles mass) and the Higg's Boson, are really two sides of the same coin. The point to finding the Higg's Boson is that it confirms the existence of the Higg's field.
Quantum field theory is very well confirmed, by the way, and it was no less than Albert Einstein (despite his later dislike of QM) who was a major instigator due to his research into photons and electromagnetic field theory. So study up on how that works so far as electromagnetic radiation is concerned, and then apply the same field concepts to Higg's.
Indeed. This is probably one of the best/. articles in a very long time. Unfortunately, what's there to comment about it? Most of us have nowhere near the level of knowledge to do much more than go "Okay... that kinda makes sense."
The important thing for me to come out of this is to defend very expensive quests like finding the Higg's Boson by pointing out that even if we cannot fathom an application for confirming the Standard Model now, we cannot predict how that research may play out in the decades or centuries to come.
To my mind, we're handing our descendants a bucket full of shit; pollution, climate change, environmental destruction, short-minded use of large amounts of non-renewable resources, all of which is going to make things much more difficult for them. At the very least we can also hand them some quality basic research and confirmations of theories so they can leap off our shoulders and solve some of our messes (and theirs too of course).
This looks to me like another V.A. Shiva history rewrite. In both cases we have journalists who know absolutely nothing about the underlying concepts behind a technology, thus writing utter nonsense. Anyone with even the thinnest knowledge of ARPANet understands that the whole intent was to build a network that could run on top of multiple network layers. For fuck's sakes,the ISP I worked for in the late 1990s had clients coming in on ISDN modems and we were plugged into the great big wide with a T1. No bloody Ethernet there, just on the internal LAN. We didn't have a router with a MAC address on the external interface until around 2002 or 2003 when we switched to a fiber circuit that terminated a couple of a hundred miles away at the fiber provider's network.
Not only does this guy not know how networks ran 20 years ago, the fucktard doesn't even know how many WANs run today.
The idea that Government was required to invent the internet is absurd.
I think, if you are referring to the network that existed by 1983 as ARPANet, then the above statement is wrong. The DoD's requirements for what became ARPANet were inherently open, not out of any particular sense of largess or community service, but rather because the network had to be resilient against failure, had to be able to operate over multiple transport networks, had to be able to be implemented on disparate hardware, and so on. To do this meant you had to have relatively simple, easily documented protocols.
There were from the 1960s onward all sorts of privately-constructed networks, certainly ARPANet wasn't invented out of thin air. Any one of them could have been expanded to become an "Internet". Certainly as telecommunications became cheaper by the end of the 1980s, and with the growing popularity of large-scale BBS systems like Compuserve, there was no lack of opportunity nor lack of an eager and growing market. But none did, because it wasn't a technical barrier they suffered, but the walled garden mentality that is typical of commercial interests.
The idea that any company wanting to build a large-scale network would, for instance, allow easy communication via a compatible standardized email system is hard to imagine. The same with file exchange, information retrieval and the like. No lack of commercial R&D projects had demonstrated from the 1970s onward the kinds of activities that we would associate with the Internet, but none of it ever took off in any large way.
Whatever Internet might have come out of the commercial world would have been as stunted and walled-off as Compuserve. Whatever Tim Berns-Lee wrote at CERN, it would have never expanded very far since commercial networks by and large would not have talked to each other, not in any common set of protocols that allowed the easy implementation by third parties over their tubes.
Want to see how the Internet would look now if ARPANet had not existed, look at Facebook.
For the better part of two decades the Arpanet/Internet connected largely government and academia. The majority of users were, one way or the other, having some or all of their salaries and duties covered by the governments of several countries, though the US government was the biggest contributor.
The Internet was already well established by the time regular consumers started connecting to it in the early 1990s.
The whole point of the Arpanet layer model is that you could pop any transmission technology you wanted into layers 1 and 2 and you could still get connectivity over disparate networks, providing layers 3 and up could be made to work. Ethernet is certainly common in LANs, but considering you can't get more than 500 feet without boosting signal, it's an absurd claim to state that Ethernet was the start of the Internet.
Except dropping your robot manufacturing plant into Somalia means you will have to employ a very vast security force to make sure it isn't blown up, taken hostage, etc. There are still advantages to locating in modern, industrialized states.
The problem here is that reality doesn't give a fuck about middle ground or accommodation. If AGW is happening, and the vast majority of experts say it is, then you're rather disingenuous attempt at being "reasonable" is utterly worthless in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm of the opinion that anyone proposing to ban anything do so with a noose around their neck.
And I want to own Buckyball magnets. It's my choice, not the government's. Seems like a tyranny to me. You're the gun owner, get out there and water the tree of Liberty with a little blood.
I wasn't attempting to create an argument against the Second Amendment (despite what some pretty mentally retarded moderators think). What I'm saying is that there is a heavy dose of irony to banning the purchase, apparently by any means, of a toy that no one can in fact demonstrate a single documented fatality of, and meanwhile some lunatic can buy enough ammunition for an arsenal. The irony doesn't just cease to exist because of what amounts to an artificial legality in the Constitution. In some ways, it makes the absurdity of how various items, despite actual verifiable risk, can be regulated or not regulated. I think people should be able to own guns and Buckyball magnets and model airplanes and bleach and so on, providing they take the necessary precautions.
But hey, what do I know? Gun sales are way up in Colorado, so I'm assuming gun manufacturers and the NRA are toasting James Holmes as we speak.
First they took away the Buckyball magnets from the Communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they took away the Buckyball magnets from the the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they took away the Buckyball magnets from the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for my Buckyball magnets
and there was no one left with any Buckyball magnets to speak out for me.
Or perhaps
Those who would give up Buckyball magnets to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Buckyball magnets nor Safety
Fucking crazy. Some schizophrenic lunatic can buy thousands of rounds of ammunition of the Internet, but God forbid anyone should buy a Buckyball magnet.
Photons do not have mass. They have energy and momentum. You clearly do not understand the underlying principles here.
And now you're going to have to justify giving personhood to a fetus, something that historically has not be done.
Photons may not have mass, but they do have energy.
Here's the crux of quantum field theory. The particle and the field are the same thing. Like photons and other force mediators, whether you describe it as a particle or as a field, you are talking about an attribute of the same thing.
I am suitably admonished for more overbearing over-generalization. Please accept my sincere apology.
Bullshit that I'm ignorant regarding Libertarians. I have yet to meet a Libertarian that thinks governments spending tax dollars on projects like LHC is a good idea, claiming, absurdly, that somehow private interests should do it.
If you had read the rest of message, you would have seen that there is a positive point to this. Unless, of course, you're a Libertarian and believe any funding of basic research is theft of your cash to pay evil, lazy scientists.
Read it again. The Higg's Field gives a lot of other particles mass. In quantum field theory, particles and fields are essentially facets of the same phenomena. Thus, the Higg's Field (which is what gives many particles mass) and the Higg's Boson, are really two sides of the same coin. The point to finding the Higg's Boson is that it confirms the existence of the Higg's field.
Quantum field theory is very well confirmed, by the way, and it was no less than Albert Einstein (despite his later dislike of QM) who was a major instigator due to his research into photons and electromagnetic field theory. So study up on how that works so far as electromagnetic radiation is concerned, and then apply the same field concepts to Higg's.
Indeed. This is probably one of the best /. articles in a very long time. Unfortunately, what's there to comment about it? Most of us have nowhere near the level of knowledge to do much more than go "Okay... that kinda makes sense."
The important thing for me to come out of this is to defend very expensive quests like finding the Higg's Boson by pointing out that even if we cannot fathom an application for confirming the Standard Model now, we cannot predict how that research may play out in the decades or centuries to come.
To my mind, we're handing our descendants a bucket full of shit; pollution, climate change, environmental destruction, short-minded use of large amounts of non-renewable resources, all of which is going to make things much more difficult for them. At the very least we can also hand them some quality basic research and confirmations of theories so they can leap off our shoulders and solve some of our messes (and theirs too of course).
This looks to me like another V.A. Shiva history rewrite. In both cases we have journalists who know absolutely nothing about the underlying concepts behind a technology, thus writing utter nonsense. Anyone with even the thinnest knowledge of ARPANet understands that the whole intent was to build a network that could run on top of multiple network layers. For fuck's sakes,the ISP I worked for in the late 1990s had clients coming in on ISDN modems and we were plugged into the great big wide with a T1. No bloody Ethernet there, just on the internal LAN. We didn't have a router with a MAC address on the external interface until around 2002 or 2003 when we switched to a fiber circuit that terminated a couple of a hundred miles away at the fiber provider's network.
Not only does this guy not know how networks ran 20 years ago, the fucktard doesn't even know how many WANs run today.
I think, if you are referring to the network that existed by 1983 as ARPANet, then the above statement is wrong. The DoD's requirements for what became ARPANet were inherently open, not out of any particular sense of largess or community service, but rather because the network had to be resilient against failure, had to be able to operate over multiple transport networks, had to be able to be implemented on disparate hardware, and so on. To do this meant you had to have relatively simple, easily documented protocols.
There were from the 1960s onward all sorts of privately-constructed networks, certainly ARPANet wasn't invented out of thin air. Any one of them could have been expanded to become an "Internet". Certainly as telecommunications became cheaper by the end of the 1980s, and with the growing popularity of large-scale BBS systems like Compuserve, there was no lack of opportunity nor lack of an eager and growing market. But none did, because it wasn't a technical barrier they suffered, but the walled garden mentality that is typical of commercial interests.
The idea that any company wanting to build a large-scale network would, for instance, allow easy communication via a compatible standardized email system is hard to imagine. The same with file exchange, information retrieval and the like. No lack of commercial R&D projects had demonstrated from the 1970s onward the kinds of activities that we would associate with the Internet, but none of it ever took off in any large way.
Whatever Internet might have come out of the commercial world would have been as stunted and walled-off as Compuserve. Whatever Tim Berns-Lee wrote at CERN, it would have never expanded very far since commercial networks by and large would not have talked to each other, not in any common set of protocols that allowed the easy implementation by third parties over their tubes.
Want to see how the Internet would look now if ARPANet had not existed, look at Facebook.
For the better part of two decades the Arpanet/Internet connected largely government and academia. The majority of users were, one way or the other, having some or all of their salaries and duties covered by the governments of several countries, though the US government was the biggest contributor.
The Internet was already well established by the time regular consumers started connecting to it in the early 1990s.
Translation: Don't falsify my ideology with facts!
This message brought to you by the Richard M. Nixon Center for Career Planning.
TOS Spock wouldn't, but reboot Spock would sleep his way to the top.
He's just wasting some time waiting for the orange hair dye to set.
The whole point of the Arpanet layer model is that you could pop any transmission technology you wanted into layers 1 and 2 and you could still get connectivity over disparate networks, providing layers 3 and up could be made to work. Ethernet is certainly common in LANs, but considering you can't get more than 500 feet without boosting signal, it's an absurd claim to state that Ethernet was the start of the Internet.
Except dropping your robot manufacturing plant into Somalia means you will have to employ a very vast security force to make sure it isn't blown up, taken hostage, etc. There are still advantages to locating in modern, industrialized states.
The problem here is that reality doesn't give a fuck about middle ground or accommodation. If AGW is happening, and the vast majority of experts say it is, then you're rather disingenuous attempt at being "reasonable" is utterly worthless in the long run.
Ask the working poor who can't afford health insurance how that private medicine thing is working out.
There is nothing more evil or idiotic than blind ideology.