The collapse of the wave function is a cute exception, but really isn't well understood enough (there are many who think "collapse" is not the best way of describing what happens) to shed light on the time problem. Entropy is an emergent phenomenon. It is not the cause of the direction of time, it is a handy way of checking time against our notion of its direction.
I will make this easy for you. The fundamental laws of physics all obey CPT symmetry.
There is such thing as time symmetry in physics. It is nonsense to say the light travelled back in time. The distinction of the "direction" of time is an observed one; it is not inherent. So I may as well say that I am living backwards, the world is spinning backwards, etc.
"Spooky action at a distance" does NOT violate general relativity. There is no transfer of information. Yes, it is wierd that the particles are so connected; no, there is no transfer of information. It is not even theoretically possible to use this for communication, which is a direct result of the fact that there is NO information transfer.
I am not claiming that this spookiness is not neat; it just does in no way violate general relativity.
It is apparent that someone needs to add some sense to this conversation. You can argue all you want about "where" this crime took place... the fact is, the "victims" were on US soil when the crime occurred. So to say that the US shouldn't conduct the trial is a bit one-sided. Also, this (as much as it's a joke to you) is a matter of national security.
Now if the US does treat him fairly eveyone is gonna yell that they are just trying to save face. You have condemned the US not on its actions, but on your own supposition. Judge the US by what it does (meaning, wait till he's sentenced to bitch about his horrible sentence). In all of my history as a US citizen, I have seen enough to beleive that the courts here are legit and fair. They are not perfect, but surely no one assumes that GB has perfect courts.
One more thing: I assure you that I (along with almost all of the rest of the country) would support the reverse case. If someone hacked GB's computers, I would expect them to be sent there for trial.
The RIAA says "but it costs money to make good music."
You say "supply and demand."
Well now you can't have it both ways. Either say "we have it, you want it" OR say "but we'll be pennyless." NOT BOTH.
So you are obviously an economist, since you know what supply and demand is... but you have never heard of economies of scale. Odd. You think $5 CDs would be a loss?? Maybe if the music business is more bloated than I thought. I can make CDs for less than $3... so the cost of production is not the issue. The previous poster explicitly stated that the $5 CDs would sell in greater numbers and would be OLD STOCK. No "studio fees" or any excuse like that.
(yes, I know that you do not think that the greater numbers would offset the lower price, but you seem to think that it would result in a net loss to sell them at that price -- they are two separate issues)
You may be right about the current rate bringing in the most money, but you are seriously deluded if you think that/.ers buy the dung that you are heaping.
Also, according to the numbers The music industry has been pulling in less money lately. Maybe a valid case could be made that CDs are overpriced. I guarantee that the music industry DOES care if he buys a CD. BMG does not make its money by being exclusive. That's a horrible comparison.
Not to add to the flames, but the fact that Bush hasn't used his new US_God powers to destroy free speech is not very heartening. It was Lenin who set up most of the arsenal which Stalin used to dictate the USSR. I would suggest that Bush really wants to do good. I do not, however, like his tactics.
I once made it to a test because I was able to look people up who were in the same class as me and call somebody to ask where it was.
Also, it's the home base for the campus CTF.
Myspace has nothing on either one of those.
I think you have a mistaken view of Libertarians. I am a Libertarian and I think this is money spent wisely. Our problem is not with the money spent, but with the spending model. It's not the fact that these people GOT money that is bothersome; it is HOW they got the money.
On a side note, scientific spending I expect would be one of the least worrisome issues for Libertarians in general for two good reasons: 1. It's so damn useful. 2. Much of the money (even for gov't labs and such) already comes from private sources. This is a direct result of (1).
ID doesn't explain it. That's the point. ID says, we can't explain it with natural science, so there must be some design to it. ID does NOT identify the designer nor the process.
Also, if you couldn't prove evolution to me (I already believe it, but that's not the point) I'd never give you money to do the study. There should be a minimum competency requirement, and failing to convince a panel of evolution is good grounds for failure. (the other option is that the panel is too retarded to accept it, but as that's what everyone is arguing, I see no point in persuing it)
That being said, it sounds like one of those studies which are intended to produce certain results... I hate those.
Not only is this halariously funny, but it brings up a good point.
Imagine: You're thirsty, just had a long day, you want to sit back an watch sports and have a beer. To you program your uber-bot to go get you one, but you can't speel so you type "get bear."
Like two days later here comes uber-bot with a live bear (or a dead one) trailing behind it into your living room.
We seriously need enough AI to make up for simple mistakes.
As only the response to a response to this was accurate let me splain:
The reason we know the universe is more massive than we can account for is not because we summed it all up. It has to do with the speed at which galaxies spin. They spin faster than they otherwise would.
The responder was right to point out that we do NOT know what shape the universe is, so it is incorrect to say it's a loop. Most of what I have read says it is pretty close to flat.
String/M-theory does suggest that the universe MAY BE bounded, but that it is part of some higher dimensional cosmos.
To sum up:
We don't know its shape, but we're pretty sure it's more massive than we can account for.
I believe he stated that atoms are made of fermions, which is true. Electrons, protons, and nuetrons are all fermions. It is true that not all bosons carry forces directly, but the statement is consistant with the fact that force carrying particles (gluons, W and Z, photons) are bosons.
What I don't get is the whole gluons being massive thing... when did this come about?
I just checked the PDG book and it says they're massless.
Actually, that is right. But you can understand if you study a little. Which is a more controlled study, particle physics experiments or experiments done on groups of people? It's a no-brainer. Years ago they tried to scare us about power lines, only to find out the guy fudged his data. So 100's of studies say no, and one more crackpot says "Hey... here's a link!!" and now we should all start running. The nice thing about science is the results are repeatable; I can go check for myself. I have checked e-m radiation theory and it checks out.
OK... Let's get FACTS:
1. THIS IS NOT A WARRANT!!!!!!
It's a subpoena... there's a BIG difference. No one thinks Google committed a crime and the feds aren't feeding them a warrant.
So Why a subpoena..? cause the feds want to SPY on us?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: There is a case being heard (which the feds don't want and didn't initiate) about the legitimacy of their law. Their case is based on the idea that their law is necessary because less intrusive means do not work. In order to PROVE this, they need evidence, which the big search engines have; thus the subpoena.
2. As has been stated, this is about the availability of porn to minors. They say they are targeting people making pornography available.
3. There is no personal privacy being infringed upon here. There may be a "collective" privacy, i.e. what we as a whole are doing/searching for, but there is no information about YOU being requested. There may be concerns about Google's rights as a corporation, but this is a subpoena, and they DO have information that may be useful for the case.
I personally think this is a bad idea, but not because GW is some fascist freak. I think it is impractical. We have much more pressing battles in terms of liberties, and it's good to see people care... but for goodness sakes PLEASE don't get all irrational about it, or we will end up like the French revolution or McCarthyism, just doing people in by association.
p.s. I think the real legal question here is whether you can use a subpoena for this kind of situation. I think the answer is no, but I would like to see Google offer the information up. I know there's a possibility that the government will say "hey who searched for that," but there are clear protections for that (see 1st amendment). I am not a lawyer, maybe the goverment subpoenas businesses often for data mining... maybe not... anyone know whether this happens?
So at risk of sounding ignorant...... I've never taken a QFT class, but I understand that many times temperature is talked about in terms of fields. The "temperature" measured here cannot realistically be temperature in the classical sense, can it? What I mean is, these particles would have to be going VERY fast for these kinds of temperatures. So, by "temperature", they mean it like thermal radiation type stuff, yeah?
Given that I've already proven myself incompetent to theorize about this I will: The whole idea of the Higgs field is that above a certain temperature the field looks normal, and then it reaches a point that a bump in the middle becomes evident. So they are saying that field disturbances may be pushing affecting these particles. It is possible that we have reached a temperature where the field starts acting funny? Or maybe there are some complicated dynamics causing resonance or wierd chain reactions in the fields?
OK so as to not waste my time looking it up in a book I'll quote this article:
Temperature in respect to matter is a property only of macroscopic amounts and serves to gauge the average intensity of the random actual motions of the individually mobile particulate constituents. Intraparticle motions apparently contribute only to the heat capacity.
I don't care what you have...
There is a difference between thermal energy and temperature. Temperature is, by definition, the average velocity of the molecules. When you heat something up, some of the energy is absorbed internally by the molecules, some of the energy may be absorbed by inter-molecular forces, and the rest makes the molecules go faster. The increased velocity of the molecules contributes to the temperature, while the others do not directly change the temperature. You are confusing the issue.
There is MUCH more powerful radiation at the Earth's surface than that which comes from cell phones.
So, blackbody radiation, for those who may be reading this, is a radiation naturally emitted by objects which are hot. It's why hot things glow. It follows a curve with the peak dependent on the temperaure.
It has NOTHING to do with this discussion.
Much, but not all, of the radiation on Earth is from stars, which do emit some blackbody radiation.
The DANGEROUS radiation is not blackbody radiation because blackbody radiation peaks usually in the infrared or below (it's not very energetic). Even for very hot stars, it is not above the visible range.
So I see a completely different picture here. There are a lot of files on the HDD that are never rewritten. System files, etc. This is where having hybrid drives really helps. Put the main boot files, executables and libraries which are accessed when staring things up in there. So no fast saves, but no load time.
I thought there might be some interest in the actual science here:
Antarctica is losing "152 ± 80 km3/year of ice" according to the abstract which can be found
here.
I'm not sure about the article's status as it is not in any journals yet,
but there was a similar study performed by these same people about Greenland's glaciers recently.
Apparantly, the study makes use of sattelites which measure gravity in order to guess at the mass of the ice.
On a side note... when did the "the Greenhouse" become a buzz-word?
I'm soory to have to waste my time with this... but here goes...
1. Are you trying to correct me or not... I can't tell... but friction doesn't exist at a molecular level. At least not in the normal sense of the word. At the molecular level, quantum mechanics rules and the emergent phenomena like friction do not occur.
(i'm having amusing mental images of a hot, red molecule rubbing past others.)
Temperature is not contained inside a molecule, it is the average velocity of the molecules contained in the material. Molecules have no temperature, really. Microwaves get the water molecules to have a greater average velocity (it's temperature goes up).
2. I assumed most readers would be more confused than enlightened by calling them helium nuclei. Yes, it is two protons and two neutrons, but the effect is that the actual atoms change. I figured that the important message was passed along.
Ionization is different than beta decay, but not really worth mentioning much because it's more likely to occur as a result of background radiation, which is of higher energy. Beta decay and Alpha radiation are simply not possible from cell phone radiation.
No, I used a lab at a major research university. The counter was part of an experiment to measure the compton effect.
The mechanism isn't the point. Any mechanism that could potentially be unknown would be able to occur from background radiation or sunlight. That was my point.
whew... I hope someone learned something so my time wasn't utterly wasted.
OK so I did an experiment using a scintillation counter in my physics lab. When you turn the machine on you got lots of hits (dozens per second) from background radiation. Then I stuck my phone up against it... nothing happened. The radiation from a phone is too weak to register. So if you are even remotely worried by cell phones, you should find yourself a big dirt hole way underground then line it with aluminum foil.
Seriously though, this is a reply that I made the the last rediculous artlice about cell-phone cancer:
*Rolling Eyes*
The people who study these things I think just make up dumb studies so that they can get grant money.
There are three ways in which EM radiation (what cell phones use) can be dangerous, in order of severity:
1. Radiation that has the resonant frequency of molecular bonds can give a LOT of energy to the molecules that make us up. That's how a microwave oven works. The EM waves have the same frequency as the resonant frequency for water molecules.
2. Radiation can kick off electrons (beta particles) or protons (alpha particles). If an element loses an electron it becomes more volatile. If an element in our DNA loses a proton it can change the DNA. That's why strong radiation can cause cancer.
3. Radiation can generally heat us up.
Cell phone radiation is not even strong enough to kick off an electron unless it is VERY loosely bound. It has no chance of kicking off a proton.
Bottom line: Unless you feel your brain start cooking (the sun is WAY more likely to cook your brain), don't worry.
I think we need logic 101 here. We pay for roads, schools, etc. that we may never use because they are considered PUBLIC. The music industry (in US) is NOT public, and therefore there is NO parallel between the two sets of taxes. If Canada's music industry is not public then the same applies.
Slashdot Mirror
The collapse of the wave function is a cute exception, but really isn't well understood enough (there are many who think "collapse" is not the best way of describing what happens) to shed light on the time problem. Entropy is an emergent phenomenon. It is not the cause of the direction of time, it is a handy way of checking time against our notion of its direction.
I will make this easy for you. The fundamental laws of physics all obey CPT symmetry.
There is such thing as time symmetry in physics. It is nonsense to say the light travelled back in time. The distinction of the "direction" of time is an observed one; it is not inherent. So I may as well say that I am living backwards, the world is spinning backwards, etc.
"Spooky action at a distance" does NOT violate general relativity. There is no transfer of information. Yes, it is wierd that the particles are so connected; no, there is no transfer of information. It is not even theoretically possible to use this for communication, which is a direct result of the fact that there is NO information transfer. I am not claiming that this spookiness is not neat; it just does in no way violate general relativity.
HelllooOOoo! It's a computer. Try 2^3=8. Eight times as many. Silly decimals.
It is apparent that someone needs to add some sense to this conversation. You can argue all you want about "where" this crime took place... the fact is, the "victims" were on US soil when the crime occurred. So to say that the US shouldn't conduct the trial is a bit one-sided. Also, this (as much as it's a joke to you) is a matter of national security.
Now if the US does treat him fairly eveyone is gonna yell that they are just trying to save face. You have condemned the US not on its actions, but on your own supposition. Judge the US by what it does (meaning, wait till he's sentenced to bitch about his horrible sentence). In all of my history as a US citizen, I have seen enough to beleive that the courts here are legit and fair. They are not perfect, but surely no one assumes that GB has perfect courts.
One more thing: I assure you that I (along with almost all of the rest of the country) would support the reverse case. If someone hacked GB's computers, I would expect them to be sent there for trial.
Hoo boy... here goes.
/.ers buy the dung that you are heaping.
The RIAA says "but it costs money to make good music."
You say "supply and demand."
Well now you can't have it both ways. Either say "we have it, you want it" OR say "but we'll be pennyless." NOT BOTH.
So you are obviously an economist, since you know what supply and demand is... but you have never heard of economies of scale. Odd. You think $5 CDs would be a loss?? Maybe if the music business is more bloated than I thought. I can make CDs for less than $3... so the cost of production is not the issue. The previous poster explicitly stated that the $5 CDs would sell in greater numbers and would be OLD STOCK. No "studio fees" or any excuse like that. (yes, I know that you do not think that the greater numbers would offset the lower price, but you seem to think that it would result in a net loss to sell them at that price -- they are two separate issues)
You may be right about the current rate bringing in the most money, but you are seriously deluded if you think that
Also, according to the numbers The music industry has been pulling in less money lately. Maybe a valid case could be made that CDs are overpriced. I guarantee that the music industry DOES care if he buys a CD. BMG does not make its money by being exclusive. That's a horrible comparison.
Not to add to the flames, but the fact that Bush hasn't used his new US_God powers to destroy free speech is not very heartening. It was Lenin who set up most of the arsenal which Stalin used to dictate the USSR. I would suggest that Bush really wants to do good. I do not, however, like his tactics.
I once made it to a test because I was able to look people up who were in the same class as me and call somebody to ask where it was. Also, it's the home base for the campus CTF. Myspace has nothing on either one of those.
I think you have a mistaken view of Libertarians. I am a Libertarian and I think this is money spent wisely. Our problem is not with the money spent, but with the spending model. It's not the fact that these people GOT money that is bothersome; it is HOW they got the money.
On a side note, scientific spending I expect would be one of the least worrisome issues for Libertarians in general for two good reasons:
1. It's so damn useful.
2. Much of the money (even for gov't labs and such) already comes from private sources. This is a direct result of (1).
ID doesn't explain it. That's the point. ID says, we can't explain it with natural science, so there must be some design to it. ID does NOT identify the designer nor the process.
Also, if you couldn't prove evolution to me (I already believe it, but that's not the point) I'd never give you money to do the study. There should be a minimum competency requirement, and failing to convince a panel of evolution is good grounds for failure. (the other option is that the panel is too retarded to accept it, but as that's what everyone is arguing, I see no point in persuing it) That being said, it sounds like one of those studies which are intended to produce certain results... I hate those.
Not only is this halariously funny, but it brings up a good point. Imagine: You're thirsty, just had a long day, you want to sit back an watch sports and have a beer. To you program your uber-bot to go get you one, but you can't speel so you type "get bear." Like two days later here comes uber-bot with a live bear (or a dead one) trailing behind it into your living room. We seriously need enough AI to make up for simple mistakes.
As only the response to a response to this was accurate let me splain:
The reason we know the universe is more massive than we can account for is not because we summed it all up. It has to do with the speed at which galaxies spin. They spin faster than they otherwise would.
The responder was right to point out that we do NOT know what shape the universe is, so it is incorrect to say it's a loop. Most of what I have read says it is pretty close to flat.
String/M-theory does suggest that the universe MAY BE bounded, but that it is part of some higher dimensional cosmos.
To sum up:
We don't know its shape, but we're pretty sure it's more massive than we can account for.
I believe he stated that atoms are made of fermions, which is true. Electrons, protons, and nuetrons are all fermions. It is true that not all bosons carry forces directly, but the statement is consistant with the fact that force carrying particles (gluons, W and Z, photons) are bosons. What I don't get is the whole gluons being massive thing... when did this come about? I just checked the PDG book and it says they're massless.
Actually, that is right. But you can understand if you study a little. Which is a more controlled study, particle physics experiments or experiments done on groups of people? It's a no-brainer. Years ago they tried to scare us about power lines, only to find out the guy fudged his data. So 100's of studies say no, and one more crackpot says "Hey... here's a link!!" and now we should all start running. The nice thing about science is the results are repeatable; I can go check for myself. I have checked e-m radiation theory and it checks out.
OK... Let's get FACTS:
1. THIS IS NOT A WARRANT!!!!!!
It's a subpoena... there's a BIG difference. No one thinks Google committed a crime and the feds aren't feeding them a warrant.
So Why a subpoena..? cause the feds want to SPY on us?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: There is a case being heard (which the feds don't want and didn't initiate) about the legitimacy of their law. Their case is based on the idea that their law is necessary because less intrusive means do not work. In order to PROVE this, they need evidence, which the big search engines have; thus the subpoena.
2. As has been stated, this is about the availability of porn to minors. They say they are targeting people making pornography available.
3. There is no personal privacy being infringed upon here. There may be a "collective" privacy, i.e. what we as a whole are doing/searching for, but there is no information about YOU being requested. There may be concerns about Google's rights as a corporation, but this is a subpoena, and they DO have information that may be useful for the case.
I personally think this is a bad idea, but not because GW is some fascist freak. I think it is impractical. We have much more pressing battles in terms of liberties, and it's good to see people care... but for goodness sakes PLEASE don't get all irrational about it, or we will end up like the French revolution or McCarthyism, just doing people in by association.
p.s. I think the real legal question here is whether you can use a subpoena for this kind of situation. I think the answer is no, but I would like to see Google offer the information up. I know there's a possibility that the government will say "hey who searched for that," but there are clear protections for that (see 1st amendment). I am not a lawyer, maybe the goverment subpoenas businesses often for data mining... maybe not... anyone know whether this happens?
So at risk of sounding ignorant... ... I've never taken a QFT class, but I understand that many times temperature is talked about in terms of fields.
The "temperature" measured here cannot realistically be temperature in the classical sense, can it?
What I mean is, these particles would have to be going VERY fast for these kinds of temperatures.
So, by "temperature", they mean it like thermal radiation type stuff, yeah?
Given that I've already proven myself incompetent to theorize about this I will:
The whole idea of the Higgs field is that above a certain temperature the field looks normal, and then it reaches a point that a bump in the middle becomes evident. So they are saying that field disturbances may be pushing affecting these particles. It is possible that we have reached a temperature where the field starts acting funny? Or maybe there are some complicated dynamics causing resonance or wierd chain reactions in the fields?
Just some ideas... I welcome responses.
ok... whatever, smart guy.
*eats cookie*
OK so as to not waste my time looking it up in a book I'll quote this article:
Temperature in respect to matter is a property only of macroscopic amounts and serves to gauge the average intensity of the random actual motions of the individually mobile particulate constituents. Intraparticle motions apparently contribute only to the heat capacity.
I don't care what you have...
There is a difference between thermal energy and temperature. Temperature is, by definition, the average velocity of the molecules. When you heat something up, some of the energy is absorbed internally by the molecules, some of the energy may be absorbed by inter-molecular forces, and the rest makes the molecules go faster. The increased velocity of the molecules contributes to the temperature, while the others do not directly change the temperature. You are confusing the issue.
There is MUCH more powerful radiation at the Earth's surface than that which comes from cell phones.
So, blackbody radiation, for those who may be reading this, is a radiation naturally emitted by objects which are hot. It's why hot things glow. It follows a curve with the peak dependent on the temperaure.
It has NOTHING to do with this discussion.
Much, but not all, of the radiation on Earth is from stars, which do emit some blackbody radiation.
The DANGEROUS radiation is not blackbody radiation because blackbody radiation peaks usually in the infrared or below (it's not very energetic). Even for very hot stars, it is not above the visible range.
So I see a completely different picture here. There are a lot of files on the HDD that are never rewritten. System files, etc. This is where having hybrid drives really helps. Put the main boot files, executables and libraries which are accessed when staring things up in there. So no fast saves, but no load time.
I thought there might be some interest in the actual science here:
Antarctica is losing "152 ± 80 km3/year of ice" according to the abstract which can be found here.
I'm not sure about the article's status as it is not in any journals yet, but there was a similar study performed by these same people about Greenland's glaciers recently.
Apparantly, the study makes use of sattelites which measure gravity in order to guess at the mass of the ice.
On a side note... when did the "the Greenhouse" become a buzz-word?
oops... you were correct to catch the beta-decay issue.
Alpha radiation can be caused by radiation (not of the EM sort).
but I'm not aware of beta decay being caused by this. Unstable nuclei are the culprits.
sorry.. my bad there.
I'm soory to have to waste my time with this... but here goes...
1. Are you trying to correct me or not... I can't tell... but friction doesn't exist at a molecular level. At least not in the normal sense of the word. At the molecular level, quantum mechanics rules and the emergent phenomena like friction do not occur.
(i'm having amusing mental images of a hot, red molecule rubbing past others.)
Temperature is not contained inside a molecule, it is the average velocity of the molecules contained in the material. Molecules have no temperature, really. Microwaves get the water molecules to have a greater average velocity (it's temperature goes up).
2. I assumed most readers would be more confused than enlightened by calling them helium nuclei. Yes, it is two protons and two neutrons, but the effect is that the actual atoms change. I figured that the important message was passed along.
Ionization is different than beta decay, but not really worth mentioning much because it's more likely to occur as a result of background radiation, which is of higher energy. Beta decay and Alpha radiation are simply not possible from cell phone radiation.
No, I used a lab at a major research university. The counter was part of an experiment to measure the compton effect.
The mechanism isn't the point. Any mechanism that could potentially be unknown would be able to occur from background radiation or sunlight. That was my point. whew... I hope someone learned something so my time wasn't utterly wasted.
OK so I did an experiment using a scintillation counter in my physics lab. When you turn the machine on you got lots of hits (dozens per second) from background radiation. Then I stuck my phone up against it... nothing happened. The radiation from a phone is too weak to register. So if you are even remotely worried by cell phones, you should find yourself a big dirt hole way underground then line it with aluminum foil.
Seriously though, this is a reply that I made the the last rediculous artlice about cell-phone cancer:
*Rolling Eyes* The people who study these things I think just make up dumb studies so that they can get grant money. There are three ways in which EM radiation (what cell phones use) can be dangerous, in order of severity: 1. Radiation that has the resonant frequency of molecular bonds can give a LOT of energy to the molecules that make us up. That's how a microwave oven works. The EM waves have the same frequency as the resonant frequency for water molecules.
2. Radiation can kick off electrons (beta particles) or protons (alpha particles). If an element loses an electron it becomes more volatile. If an element in our DNA loses a proton it can change the DNA. That's why strong radiation can cause cancer.
3. Radiation can generally heat us up.
Cell phone radiation is not even strong enough to kick off an electron unless it is VERY loosely bound. It has no chance of kicking off a proton.
Bottom line: Unless you feel your brain start cooking (the sun is WAY more likely to cook your brain), don't worry.
I think we need logic 101 here. We pay for roads, schools, etc. that we may never use because they are considered PUBLIC. The music industry (in US) is NOT public, and therefore there is NO parallel between the two sets of taxes.
If Canada's music industry is not public then the same applies.
Sheesh.