>>> I might just as well ask 'where does the energy come from to create the past?'
Not sure how that is equivalent. It's a universe of matter and energy with a flow of time. Looking strictly at one universe, the universe of the past is not a different universe and neither is the universe of the future. The idea that the universe is destroyed and recreated with every moment seems to me to be more of a philosophical concept.
What the article seemed to be saying is that a whole different universe comes into being because some particle can be in different places. The only way I can see that is if [1] the infinitude of parallels preexist, and that until that particle decision the two universes in question were identical or [2] the branching is a highly localized effect.
And if I *don't* buy into the universe=simulation theory?...
All I can come up with is that there were an infinite number of parallels created at the Big Bang (or D-brane collision, if you like), all exactly the same, and they begin to diverge from there.
But that requires INFINITE energy at the point of creation, and from what I have read to date, physicists don't really like infinite answers and other singularities. In fact, that's one of the attractions of string theory: it smooths over a lot of things that previous theories gave infinites for.
Not really. It's convetionally interpreted as "It was a miss, but a near thing." And convention generally trumps nitpickers.:)
You *can* use "near hit" and I believe the safety industry actually uses the two interchangeably. It might be one of those glass half full or half empty situations.
But it boils down to what it really was. Was it a hit or a miss, and what kind of hit or miss.
Here's how *I* would put it: Near miss: Objects miss, but it was close. Near hit: Objects collided in glancing blow. Distant miss: Objects missed, we're not close, but maybe it's something to look into. Distant hit: meaningless
And then there's: Direct hit: Bang on target! Direct miss: Meaningless outside of satire,:)
Where does the energy come from to give existence to this second universe? This whole splitting of the universe thing seems common in physics, so I'm sure I'm not interpreting this correctly. It seems like there's entire universes being created because of the uncertainty of a single particle.
Well, the Chinese leadership does still come out with some "We will destroy you! Mwah ha ha ha!" rhetoric now and then, but, personally, I think it's just trash talk. They're not going to war with their biggest market. Even Communists aren't *that* stupid.
Hey, I'm paying through for the second time (rescued the little sisters the first time, harvesting them this time and on a harder leevel).
I'd totally move to something like Rapture, but I have to admit living in an apartment with big windows on the other side of which is the screaming crushing instant death of the deep sea might be a bit unnerving no matter how much tranparent aluminum is protecting me.
Not my department, typo Nazi. I *have* suggested better guidelines, but, well, I'm not the CEO, and he's too busy fucking whores on piles of $100 bills.
But the reality is that pooling resources makes too much sense,
I'm missing the sense result. It seems like pooling resources to catapult sociopaths into positions of power who then proceed to rape me in one orifice or another, depending on the Party.
One hopes that individuals don't disengage their brain cells upon joining a party, but human nature being what it is, that's almost too much to expect.
We get some MIT grads where I work sometimes. I really try to avoid having them on any of my teams until they've been seasoned a bit. Their work is no better than any other newhire, and there's a whole "You can't tell me anything cuz I went to MIT" subtext to every discussion. I have a job to do and milestones to hit. I don't need that juvinile bullshit.
So Edwards' policy against nukes, which has a lot of strong arguments in favor of it (with which I agree) is equal to the Republican plans for ruination?
Nnnnnno... I was just tossing out one example so as to avoid a 70 page post. It's the close mindedness (ON BOTH SIDES!) that drives me nuts. And many of his arguments can be answered, but that's a whole other can of worms.
I think you misread me a bit, so me spell it out: I think the GOP needs to be catastrophically punished, and I hope there's hardly a single Republican in office after the 2008 elections. With hope, they can get rid of that fucking religious element like the mind cancer that it is, and get back to a more centrist conservatism.
Hey, I still vote. I try to educate people when I can. I just don't harbor any illusions of hope for this mess because I think, as a productive and independent citizen, the Democrats want to fuck me over just as much as anyone.
I work hard, invest as well as I can, and I hope to retire somewhere really far away. Abandoning a sinking ship? Maybe. Don't really care anymore or what anyone thinks of that. I'm too tired. But, good luck with whatever efforts you make.
That's another problem I have, though. I really try not to be ideological. And by that I mean I look at any issue with an open mind. I can evertually decide on any type of solution: something free market, or something involving a government program, or some mix, or maybe even something else altogether.
To many of the third parties are even MORE extremist. Try to defend captialism, even as an abstract concept, to a Green Party wonk (especially one from the progressive wing). Try to defend free public education to a hard core Libertarian (or, worse, an Objectivist). They don't want to hear aout it. It's the one size fits all crowd.
Matt Groenig in his Life In Hell comic had the "9 types of college professors". One of them was the "Single theory" professor or something like that. The picture was a prof proclaiming something silly like "The country that controls magnesium controls the world!"
That's how I picture most Party members, be they primary or secondary parties. It's groupthink. I wish we could get RID of political parties.
At the state level (both state and Congressional elections), the districts have been so gerrymandered, you get extremist after extremist. Do you live in California by chance? The extremism is destroying this state.
At the presidential level, any sane people get culled out even before the primaries. It's the media's fault here. Any sane person will occasionally suggest a solution that is diametrically opposed to the status quo, and the media will make that person out to be a lunatic when the exact opposite is true. What were left with is a choice between a small number of sociopathic megalomaniacs.
And I'm no Republican, but you don't *really* think the Dems have any solutions, do you? I go to their web pages, and it's the same old broken crap.
Go look at Edwards statement on energy. The first half of it is "No nuclear power! It's scary! Don't care about technological advancements. No nukes! Naaa naa naaa! I'm not listening!"
Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. Dems are just as close-minded as Rep, but on different things.
And, no, I don't have any answers, hence the frustration.:( Retire overseas, I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
Do people's real lives suck so badly
:(
Mine does.
that they need to frivolously spend money to create their own little world where things don't suck?
Ah, but that's where the idea falls apart. The little virtual worlds suck, too.
Many people out there just need to get laid. It's a lot cheaper than spending money...
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Oh, wait, you weren't kidding!
>>> I might just as well ask 'where does the energy come from to create the past?'
Not sure how that is equivalent. It's a universe of matter and energy with a flow of time. Looking strictly at one universe, the universe of the past is not a different universe and neither is the universe of the future. The idea that the universe is destroyed and recreated with every moment seems to me to be more of a philosophical concept.
What the article seemed to be saying is that a whole different universe comes into being because some particle can be in different places. The only way I can see that is if [1] the infinitude of parallels preexist, and that until that particle decision the two universes in question were identical or [2] the branching is a highly localized effect.
And if I *don't* buy into the universe=simulation theory? ...
All I can come up with is that there were an infinite number of parallels created at the Big Bang (or D-brane collision, if you like), all exactly the same, and they begin to diverge from there.
But that requires INFINITE energy at the point of creation, and from what I have read to date, physicists don't really like infinite answers and other singularities. In fact, that's one of the attractions of string theory: it smooths over a lot of things that previous theories gave infinites for.
It's always Monday in some parallel universe. Maybe Mondays leak across universes like superstring gravity.
Not really. It's convetionally interpreted as "It was a miss, but a near thing." And convention generally trumps nitpickers. :)
:)
You *can* use "near hit" and I believe the safety industry actually uses the two interchangeably. It might be one of those glass half full or half empty situations.
But it boils down to what it really was. Was it a hit or a miss, and what kind of hit or miss.
Here's how *I* would put it:
Near miss: Objects miss, but it was close.
Near hit: Objects collided in glancing blow.
Distant miss: Objects missed, we're not close, but maybe it's something to look into.
Distant hit: meaningless
And then there's:
Direct hit: Bang on target!
Direct miss: Meaningless outside of satire,
If there are an infinite number of parallel universes for each possible quantum outcome, why do we only experience -this- one?
It's only *us* experiencing this one.
We're punished for something, I just know it.
Where does the energy come from to give existence to this second universe? This whole splitting of the universe thing seems common in physics, so I'm sure I'm not interpreting this correctly. It seems like there's entire universes being created because of the uncertainty of a single particle.
Of course every conversation will be "BOMB! PLANE! BOMB! BOMB! KEEBLER! BOMB! NUKE! KILL! BOMB! KILL!" but that's the price of, um, something...
Well, the Chinese leadership does still come out with some "We will destroy you! Mwah ha ha ha!" rhetoric now and then, but, personally, I think it's just trash talk. They're not going to war with their biggest market. Even Communists aren't *that* stupid.
Hey, I'm paying through for the second time (rescued the little sisters the first time, harvesting them this time and on a harder leevel).
I'd totally move to something like Rapture, but I have to admit living in an apartment with big windows on the other side of which is the screaming crushing instant death of the deep sea might be a bit unnerving no matter how much tranparent aluminum is protecting me.
Seriously. Does it?
What do people expect the Chinese to do? Build a wall around it?
There's evanescent field coupling but I think that can be detected.
They're going to build Rapture under the sea!
Not my department, typo Nazi. I *have* suggested better guidelines, but, well, I'm not the CEO, and he's too busy fucking whores on piles of $100 bills.
But the reality is that pooling resources makes too much sense,
I'm missing the sense result. It seems like pooling resources to catapult sociopaths into positions of power who then proceed to rape me in one orifice or another, depending on the Party.
One hopes that individuals don't disengage their brain cells upon joining a party, but human nature being what it is, that's almost too much to expect.
Yeah... that was my point. actually.
And there was no countdown timer- the single most important piece of equipment in all of villianous bombcraft
We get some MIT grads where I work sometimes. I really try to avoid having them on any of my teams until they've been seasoned a bit. Their work is no better than any other newhire, and there's a whole "You can't tell me anything cuz I went to MIT" subtext to every discussion. I have a job to do and milestones to hit. I don't need that juvinile bullshit.
...need to get out more.
breadboard, some LEDs, and a 9v battery.
Yes, WE, the technically inclined community on Slashdot know that. But we're dealing with the government drones of the airports.
They WAY overreacted, but, I have to be blunt here: wearing something like that into an airport is the action of a complete, fucking dumbass.
I'm sorry, but there is no rational excuse for it. However, I wouldn't punish her to any extent other than a small fine for being an utter tool.
I say we all go out & buy some blinky, flashy, raver toys and flashmob an airport!
Yeah, you do that. Buy some water pistols to point at the cops, too.
The authorities are overreacting *AND* the student was a complete, dumbass tool.
It doesn't have to be either/or.
Oh, and as "art" it's laughable.
So Edwards' policy against nukes, which has a lot of strong arguments in favor of it (with which I agree) is equal to the Republican plans for ruination?
Nnnnnno... I was just tossing out one example so as to avoid a 70 page post. It's the close mindedness (ON BOTH SIDES!) that drives me nuts. And many of his arguments can be answered, but that's a whole other can of worms.
I think you misread me a bit, so me spell it out: I think the GOP needs to be catastrophically punished, and I hope there's hardly a single Republican in office after the 2008 elections. With hope, they can get rid of that fucking religious element like the mind cancer that it is, and get back to a more centrist conservatism.
Hey, I still vote. I try to educate people when I can. I just don't harbor any illusions of hope for this mess because I think, as a productive and independent citizen, the Democrats want to fuck me over just as much as anyone.
I work hard, invest as well as I can, and I hope to retire somewhere really far away. Abandoning a sinking ship? Maybe. Don't really care anymore or what anyone thinks of that. I'm too tired. But, good luck with whatever efforts you make.
antidichotomites
:)
Wait. Isn't that what give Jedis their powers?
See? Another dichotomy!
That's another problem I have, though. I really try not to be ideological. And by that I mean I look at any issue with an open mind. I can evertually decide on any type of solution: something free market, or something involving a government program, or some mix, or maybe even something else altogether.
To many of the third parties are even MORE extremist. Try to defend captialism, even as an abstract concept, to a Green Party wonk (especially one from the progressive wing). Try to defend free public education to a hard core Libertarian (or, worse, an Objectivist). They don't want to hear aout it. It's the one size fits all crowd.
Matt Groenig in his Life In Hell comic had the "9 types of college professors". One of them was the "Single theory" professor or something like that. The picture was a prof proclaiming something silly like "The country that controls magnesium controls the world!"
That's how I picture most Party members, be they primary or secondary parties. It's groupthink. I wish we could get RID of political parties.
Kinesophobes should take the plunge or not play.
Oh, God, another false dichotomy! Can we divide and conquer ourselves in any more ways?
But voting does not work anymore.
:( Retire overseas, I suppose.
At the state level (both state and Congressional elections), the districts have been so gerrymandered, you get extremist after extremist. Do you live in California by chance? The extremism is destroying this state.
At the presidential level, any sane people get culled out even before the primaries. It's the media's fault here. Any sane person will occasionally suggest a solution that is diametrically opposed to the status quo, and the media will make that person out to be a lunatic when the exact opposite is true. What were left with is a choice between a small number of sociopathic megalomaniacs.
And I'm no Republican, but you don't *really* think the Dems have any solutions, do you? I go to their web pages, and it's the same old broken crap.
Go look at Edwards statement on energy. The first half of it is "No nuclear power! It's scary! Don't care about technological advancements. No nukes! Naaa naa naaa! I'm not listening!"
Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. Dems are just as close-minded as Rep, but on different things.
And, no, I don't have any answers, hence the frustration.