A brief perusal of the first "paper" linked there shows that he is stating that both 'v' and 'c' are constants in the Lorentz transforms in some places and then using that to come to some sort of result that doesn't really follow clearly, or at least there is a lot of hand waving.
'c', the speed of light is a constant. 'v' is the velocity of what you're looking at which is a variable.
Although, I do have to give him credit for some pretty amusing ways of wording things:
'Any nonzero value of speed found in the Lorentzian equations in Eq. set A, such as v=0.2c, for example, must now be ridiculed'
I would have loved to have used that on some of my math exams in college.
"Since R is a Euclidian space and we have demonstrated that the set A in R is both closed and bounded we know by the Heine-Borel theorem that it is compact and hence can be ridiculed."
The OP said that having farming in the calculation for GDP reduces the number that results.
Somebody asked why that would be, and I came up with what I think is a reasonable explanation.
The fact is that we pay a huge amount of money to farmers as subsidies and various other incentives. Given this it seems reasonable that, depending on how the GDP numbers are calculated, that taking a huge welfare recipient out of the equation might change the result.
The basis for the whole tax thing is the public records. Here is an article I happened upon which explains it pretty well. If you don't like how they say it, they do provide references. As to why it came up, whenever I hear about farm subsidies, or other things like that, it pisses me off that people whose lifestyle depends entirely upon leeching off of me do not have the basic human decency to be grateful. They prefer to try and shove their attitudes, which are a huge reason for their poverty, down the throats of those who are providing for them.
I think it's important to present the facts about the welfare states when it comes up. How else will they ever be able to get their words and actions in the same universe?
So, when I lived in the US, all those corn (ADM?) commercials that I saw on PBS weren't representing that the company made lots of money?
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. PBS is Public television, and as such doesn't have commercials.
Hey, I'm not into economics, so please explain to me how excluding an industry from being counted could cause the GDP to up.
Because farming for the most part is a huge drain on the economy. Not as bad a drain as having no food, mind you, but still a huge drain.
In the US, we pay farmers not to grow food. Then the price for the food that goes to market is hugely inflated above market costs.
So all the food you buy here, you essentially pay much more than it's worth, and you pay at least two times.
This is basically why only the so-called blue states pay their own way and they pay for the red states as well. Other than Texas (oil) and Nevada (Vegas, Baby, Vegas), all of the red states are net welfare states. They receive the afore mentioned farm subsidies. Additionally, since they are largely rural their phones, cell phones, roads, and essentially all of their infrastructure is paid for by the blue states.
The really hilarious part is that they are generally the ones bitching about welfare when they are the ones who get the vast majority of it.
Re:The myth is dead! Long live the myth!
on
The Solar Death Ray
·
· Score: 1
I have just seen a middle school science project in which the kid got 280 F using about 100 small flat hand mirrors mounted on a square piece of plywood.
You really need to let your kid build his own science projects;-)
Yet it may be more than sufficient if the French Army invades . ..
But wait....If they put the marshmallows on their bayonets, they'll get all dirty when they drop their rifles and where's the fun in a dirty marshmallow?!?
but in 5 years I am thinking that slap-the-bitch.com might be a sight I would want blocked.
Then block it. Who exactly is stopping you?
That is this thing known as "Freedom".
There are these people known variously as "cowards", "fools", "scumbags", and "fascist fuckheads", among many other terms who do not understand that to have "Freedom" takes something known as "Courage". Which is a dwindling resource in this modern world.
While I did quite well in prep school in mathematics, my love for mathematical symmetry morphed to the study of music theory in college (the two are not as dissimilar as most would think).
That's certainly true.
How's this for a strange coincidence.
It would be tough to name the greatest mathematician, or the greatest composer of all time since there is a great deal of subjectivity to that. However, I believe that it's pretty generally accepted that the greatest musical dynasty was the Bach family and the greatest mathematical dynasty was the Bernoulli family.
There were at least 3 generations of some of the greats in their respective fields.
They lived at the same time, and within 100 miles of each other.
I'm not saying it means anything, but it truly amazed me the first time I learned about it.
I know it's been there since at least Windows 2000. Open the properties for any service. The account it runs under is right in front of you.
Yes, it is.
Set the account to anything you want. Reboot the system. It will not start, unless you set it to the system account. There might possibly be a way to do it with Win 2K3, but it does not work under 2000,.NET or not.
Well, they have advertized themselves as such for years. Tell me this, though. How do you build a windows service (that's a daemon for you unix folks but it needs to be specifically built and installed to work properly), have it run as an unprivileged user (i.e. *not* the system account) and have it start when the system boots *without* the user it is supposed to run as logging in at the console?
(though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?)
Look, I'll try not to be too rude about this, but it really pisses me off that people continue to repeat this completely idiotic tripe when a few moments thought would demonstrate how completely stupid it is.
So, to answer your question: Of course not. There is no similarity whatsoever. What you are doing is assuming that your religion is correct. Were that true, then you would have a point. It is a simple logical fallacy where you assume what you try to demonstrate.
So let me explain how it really works.
Everybody in the entire world is born an atheist. This includes you, me, the pope, GWB and Osama bin Laden.
Many people at some point in their life decide to accept some particular religious belief as truth. They do this with no credible evidence which could be used to convince others in a reasoned rational manner.
That is essentially what religion is.
Now, some people are unconvinced by this. They do not choose to blindly follow some belief system which to them just sounds like a bunch of inconsistent nonsense.
The very wording you use demonstrates your incredible bias in favor of some god or other.
If you refuse to believe
It's not a question of refusing. That presupposes that there is some reason to do so in the first place.
How about you provide some legitimate evidence demonstrating the existence of your particular god?
Until you can do that, then you are the one who has a religion.
Do you now understand the fundamental difference between the 2 things?
Isn't it very clear and simple with a little basic thought?
I don't think that evangelical Christians, by and large, are afraid of the marketplace of ideas. They are used to being the underdog in an ideological war.
The problem with this is that they are *not* used to being the underdog. They are used to convincing themselves that they are the underdog, when they are absolutely not.
Personally, I think this persecution complex that they foster among themselves helps to keep them focussed on their agenda of shoving their beliefs down everybody else's throats at gunpoint.
The fact that the founding fathers specifically designed the constitution to keep these people from being able to push their anti-freedom agenda should be a huge warning sign that allowing them any sort of control over government policy based on their religious beliefs is contrary to everything that has made this country great.
If you look at the public struggles between creationists and evolutionists, the creationists who represent the mainstream Evangelical thought are not trying to remove evolution, they would just like the teaching of evolution to acknowledge that it is not a proven fact, and that there are other schools of thought, an in particular, the possibility of intelligent design.
Except evolution is an absolutely proven fact. Have you ever seen a dog? A seedless watermelon? There you go. 100% positive proof. Now, if you want to talk about the origin of life, then that is a different story entirely.
Intelligent design is not a theory, and it is not science. It is an entirely religious based belief, and as such has no business anywhere in government policy, or public education.
Slashdot Mirror
A brief perusal of the first "paper" linked there shows that he is stating that both 'v' and 'c' are constants in the Lorentz transforms in some places and then using that to come to some sort of result that doesn't really follow clearly, or at least there is a lot of hand waving.
'c', the speed of light is a constant. 'v' is the velocity of what you're looking at which is a variable.
Although, I do have to give him credit for some pretty amusing ways of wording things:
'Any nonzero value of speed found in the Lorentzian equations in Eq. set A, such as v=0.2c, for example, must now be ridiculed'
I would have loved to have used that on some of my math exams in college.
"Since R is a Euclidian space and we have demonstrated that the set A in R is both closed and bounded we know by the Heine-Borel theorem that it is compact and hence can be ridiculed."
Disgruntled Defence Signals Directorate employee, am no longer allowed to exchange secrets for diet coke.
You used to didn't you?
What happened, Dude?
Did you get caught exchanging secrets? Is your garage filled up with diet coke and your wife won't let you get any more until you drink it?
What's the deal?
Can you please cite your sources?
I did.
There are links to the raw data in that article, had you looked.
Also, feel free to look it up yourself.
Facts are facts.
And you thought the ultimate fighting championship was popular.
How much do you think they could get away with charging for the pay per view?
So you're saying that farming reduces GDP?
The OP said that having farming in the calculation for GDP reduces the number that results.
Somebody asked why that would be, and I came up with what I think is a reasonable explanation.
The fact is that we pay a huge amount of money to farmers as subsidies and various other incentives.
Given this it seems reasonable that, depending on how the GDP numbers are calculated, that taking a huge welfare recipient out of the equation might change the result.
The basis for the whole tax thing is the public records. Here
is an article I happened upon which explains it pretty well. If you don't like how they say it, they do provide references.
As to why it came up, whenever I hear about farm subsidies, or other things like that, it pisses me off that people whose lifestyle depends entirely upon leeching off of me do not have the basic human decency to be grateful. They prefer to try and shove their attitudes, which are a huge reason for their poverty, down the throats of those who are providing for them.
I think it's important to present the facts about the welfare states when it comes up. How else will they ever be able to get their words and actions in the same universe?
So, when I lived in the US, all those corn (ADM?) commercials that I saw on PBS weren't representing that the company made lots of money?
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. PBS is Public television, and as such doesn't have commercials.
Hey, I'm not into economics, so please explain to me how excluding an industry from being counted could cause the GDP to up.
Because farming for the most part is a huge drain on the economy. Not as bad a drain as having no food, mind you, but still a huge drain.
In the US, we pay farmers not to grow food. Then the price for the food that goes to market is hugely inflated above market costs.
So all the food you buy here, you essentially pay much more than it's worth, and you pay at least two times.
This is basically why only the so-called blue states pay their own way and they pay for the red states as well.
Other than Texas (oil) and Nevada (Vegas, Baby, Vegas), all of the red states are net welfare states.
They receive the afore mentioned farm subsidies.
Additionally, since they are largely rural their phones, cell phones, roads, and essentially all of their infrastructure is paid for by the blue states.
The really hilarious part is that they are generally the ones bitching about welfare when they are the ones who get the vast majority of it.
Yeah, see the other response to my post for the explanation. Archimedes is *not* Pythagoras.
Doh!
Yep, you're right.
I have just seen a middle school science project in which the kid got 280 F using about 100 small flat hand mirrors mounted on a square piece of plywood.
;-)
You really need to let your kid build his own science projects
Great Archimedes, please help this heathen see the power of pi!
Archimedes didn't even like the idea of irrational numbers.
Pi isn't even algebraic for Athena's sake.
Yet it may be more than sufficient if the French Army invades . . .
But wait....If they put the marshmallows on their bayonets, they'll get all dirty when they drop their rifles and where's the fun in a dirty marshmallow?!?
That's funny.
Change the B to A and you get Fry.
C doesn't do anything.
It's late.
The rest of the alphabet is left as an exercize for the readership.
But then you kind of have to always do her frumby.
Of course, when she bitches about it, it's much easier to ignore "Glub Glub".
Yeah, the downside is that you absolfreakinglutley can not use "good smelling" as a surefire way to eliminate a potential girlfriend.
In case you're wondering, the parent post was modded insightful because now people don't actually have to click on the link and risk RTFA.
Now that is pure genious.
Now, I did get my BS in math, read The Man Who Knew Infinity, and so know who he was, but regardless.
That was great.
but in 5 years I am thinking that slap-the-bitch.com might be a sight I would want blocked.
Then block it. Who exactly is stopping you?
That is this thing known as "Freedom".
There are these people known variously as "cowards", "fools", "scumbags", and "fascist fuckheads", among many other terms who do not understand that to have "Freedom" takes something known as "Courage".
Which is a dwindling resource in this modern world.
While I did quite well in prep school in mathematics, my love for mathematical symmetry morphed to the study of music theory in college (the two are not as dissimilar as most would think).
That's certainly true.
How's this for a strange coincidence.
It would be tough to name the greatest mathematician, or the greatest composer of all time since there is a great deal of subjectivity to that.
However, I believe that it's pretty generally accepted that the greatest musical dynasty was the Bach family and the greatest mathematical dynasty was the Bernoulli family.
There were at least 3 generations of some of the greats in their respective fields.
They lived at the same time, and within 100 miles of each other.
I'm not saying it means anything, but it truly amazed me the first time I learned about it.
His name is in the first sentence.
I just moused over, and it's in the freaking URL.
Do you even know anything about perl?
I'm sorry.
Somebody has something in their sig about somebody saying that to Tom Christiansen and I thought I'd try to be funny.
P.S. Thanks for the help on perlmonks.
Troy was a long overblown homage to the concept of man-on-man love.
Wasn't that Alexander?
Not that I saw either of them.
I know it's been there since at least Windows 2000. Open the properties for any service. The account it runs under is right in front of you.
.NET or not.
Yes, it is.
Set the account to anything you want.
Reboot the system.
It will not start, unless you set it to the system account.
There might possibly be a way to do it with Win 2K3, but it does not work under 2000,
It says it does, but it doesn't.
Windows has been multi-user for years,
Well, they have advertized themselves as such for years.
Tell me this, though.
How do you build a windows service (that's a daemon for you unix folks but it needs to be specifically built and installed to work properly), have it run as an unprivileged user (i.e. *not* the system account) and have it start when the system boots *without* the user it is supposed to run as logging in at the console?
If it's possible, then it is *very* fucking new.
(though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?)
Look, I'll try not to be too rude about this, but it really pisses me off that people continue to repeat this completely idiotic tripe when a few moments thought would demonstrate how completely stupid it is.
So, to answer your question:
Of course not.
There is no similarity whatsoever.
What you are doing is assuming that your religion is correct. Were that true, then you would have a point.
It is a simple logical fallacy where you assume what you try to demonstrate.
So let me explain how it really works.
Everybody in the entire world is born an atheist.
This includes you, me, the pope, GWB and Osama bin Laden.
Many people at some point in their life decide to accept some particular religious belief as truth. They do this with no credible evidence which could be used to convince others in a reasoned rational manner.
That is essentially what religion is.
Now, some people are unconvinced by this.
They do not choose to blindly follow some belief system which to them just sounds like a bunch of inconsistent nonsense.
The very wording you use demonstrates your incredible bias in favor of some god or other.
If you refuse to believe
It's not a question of refusing. That presupposes that there is some reason to do so in the first place.
How about you provide some legitimate evidence demonstrating the existence of your particular god?
Until you can do that, then you are the one who has a religion.
Do you now understand the fundamental difference between the 2 things?
Isn't it very clear and simple with a little basic thought?
I don't think that evangelical Christians, by and large, are afraid of the marketplace of ideas. They are used to being the underdog in an ideological war.
The problem with this is that they are *not* used to being the underdog. They are used to convincing themselves that they are the underdog, when they are absolutely not.
Personally, I think this persecution complex that they foster among themselves helps to keep them focussed on their agenda of shoving their beliefs down everybody else's throats at gunpoint.
The fact that the founding fathers specifically designed the constitution to keep these people from being able to push their anti-freedom agenda should be a huge warning sign that allowing them any sort of control over government policy based on their religious beliefs is contrary to everything that has made this country great.
If you look at the public struggles between creationists and evolutionists, the creationists who represent the mainstream Evangelical thought are not trying to remove evolution, they would just like the teaching of evolution to acknowledge that it is not a proven fact, and that there are other schools of thought, an in particular, the possibility of intelligent design.
Except evolution is an absolutely proven fact.
Have you ever seen a dog? A seedless watermelon?
There you go. 100% positive proof.
Now, if you want to talk about the origin of life, then that is a different story entirely.
Intelligent design is not a theory, and it is not science. It is an entirely religious based belief, and as such has no business anywhere in government policy, or public education.
That is punishing MS twice (fine + funding their own competitors).
Sounds like the carrot *and* the stick.
Nothing else has had the slightest effect on their criminal actions, so why is this a problem exactly?