A photon has no mass, because it travels at the speed of light. Nevertheless, due to energy-mass equivalence, it can exert gravitational effects.
A photon has no rest mass. It has gravitational mass: m = E/c^2
Physicists mostly use the term "mass" as shorthand to mean "rest mass". Mostly. But the word "mass" can have several possible meanings in physics, so if you want to be clear, you should specify which mass.
a photon is most certainly not an "object" using any ordinary definition of the term or even a definition that the vast majority of physicists would use
Absolutely right.
And furthermore, a photon was not even what was "teleported". What was "teleported" was the polarization state of the photon. That is even less an "object".
Nobody makes perovskite solar cells. They are one of MANY technologies that are being touted as the next great thing. Right now, their very high humidity sensitivity makes them not commercializable, but maybe someday.
But the article we are discussing was talking about today's technologies, not some other technology maybe possibly could be used in the future.
I hate to say it, but this is (1) not a "study"-- it's an opinion article, and (2) the opinion expressed is unmitigated bullshit.
From the purported "study": "Solar panels contain toxic metals like lead, which can damage the nervous system, as well as chromium and cadmium, known carcinogens.
Notice that weasel word--materials "like" lead. Solar panels don't contain lead. Period. But the "study" didn't actually say they contained lead, did it? It said they contain materials "like" lead. What does that actually mean? Uh, I don't think it actually means anything whatsoever.
Likewise, solar panels don't contain chromium (you'd think this guy would go after cars, wouldn't he? They actually do use chromium.). And, while one type of panel does use cadmium (albeit in micron thicknesses)-- the vast majority of low cost solar panels sold are silicon solar cells, which do not contain cadmium.
Overall conclusion: this is not a "study," this is bullshit, pure and simple,
That goes in my quotable quotes file: " if there's one lesson on how to do your part in an age of distributed truth, it's to speak the truth and to support those who do. It may be exhausting work but it's the best we can do for now."
Think back to your school days. There certainly were some subjects you had exactly zero interest in. Well? What did forcing you to learn that shit accomplish?
In fact, there are many many things in school that kids don't want to learn but are nevertheless valuable for them to have learned.
Do you remember anything, and if, enough to actually go into a profession that requires you to know anything about it?
That's your flaw right there. Coding is a knowledge set that has some value to know even if you don't go into a profession that requires coding. It teaches a way of logically understanding how a problem is broken down into a process, and how processes run. (And it also gives students some familiarity with what's inside the stuff that they will interact with every day of their lives, so that they understand it's code, it's not some sort of magic.)
This is quite horrifying. If Canada thinks that Canadian courts can order Google to delete results everywhere in the world, then the same argument says Chinese courts can order Google to delete results everywhere in the world.
Once again, since you missed it previously: Sarcasm is invisible on the internet (and especially on/.) because it is camouflaged by the ubiquitous background of actual cluelessness.
Pretend cluelessness is indistinguishable from real cluelessness.
Lately for me (for about 2-3 weeks or so), that has been fucked up such that it is stuck at +3/+3, and when I try to change it in my account settings, the new setting doesn't get saved. Hey, Whipslash, wtf?
Lucky you, you only get the reasonable comments and not the idiots, clueless, and trolls.
A troll like this has more chance in its own thread. Sorry for outing you. By the way, when you were typing, you might have noticed a little red squiggly line under 'traveling'. That's because you spelled it wrong.
"But the court said people can’t avoid the ban by entering into a relationship solely for the purpose of traveling to the U.S." = Nearly impossible to prosecute/prove, unless they're extremely lazy/careless.
Indeed. But, of course, if somebody gets banned from travel to the US, the burden of proof to show that the relationship is "bona fide" is on the person traveling, not on the government.
A statute, even one passed by Congress, is invalid if it abridges a constitutional right. Congress cannot give the president the power to take away rights guaranteed by the constitution.
The statute was signed by President Truman - a democrat. Obama signed a similar order to Trump except it was for a longer period of time and gave more advanced warning.
[people exempt from the ban] "includes people visiting a close family member, students who have been admitted to a university or workers who have accepted an employment offer, the court said. But the court said people can’t avoid the ban by entering into a relationship solely for the purpose of traveling to the U.S."
"Drivers will also get a cut of Uber's "teen fare" which had previously gone exclusively to Uber. "
Wait, what? Uber has been charging a special higher fare for teens... but the driver was (up until now) getting the same amount????
How does that make any sense? If there's a surcharge because teens are in some way harder to deal with-- what, do they damage the cars, or what?-- the driver is the one dealing with it-- the driver should get the surcharge and Uber get zero part of it.
No, I said that a reasonable society might includes a safety net for its citizens. YOU were the one who called that "stealing" and "oppression".
Specifically, what I said was:
Hmm-- interesting idea. We could have a government-mandated plan that provides some sort of minimum benefits, which everybody pays into as part of their job, and that could be like a "safety net" applying to all employees, so they're not destitute even if their savings get drained and their company goes bankrupt. And then, companies could also offer benefits beyond this minimum, a "retirement plan," if you will, so people who worked for that company would have an income that's more than that safety-net minimum when they retire. A two-layer plan. The minimum plan would just be be security, be part of the overall social structure. Say, we could even call it that: "social security." Good name!
This is what reasonable societies do: provide for the general welfare of the citizens, even when they're too old to work.
But your proposal works, too-- if peoples' savings get drained and the company they'd worked for goes bankrupt, sure, just let them beg, and if they're not good at that, they can just starve to death. That's totally reasonable, I guess. It just depends on what kind of society you want.
Your libertarian ideology chooses to define any action by governments as "stealing."
When you define people working together to promote the common welfare-- an explicitly stated goal of the U.S. constitution, for what it's worth-- as "stealing," your use of language is Orwellian.
But it's amusing how you sprinkle libertarian trigger-words through your post. Everything is "collectivist" and "stealing" and "at the point of a gun." No need to do any actual thinking, just grep the appropriate libertarian catch-phrases and string them together.
Yes, by all means, we should take seriously your suggestion for an alternate safety net, that people should just do "GoFundMe" campaigns. No problem! Or they should "get some relatives." (Right. How exactly do you "get relatives"? Post on ask-slashdot?) Sure, that'll work.
Last job I had, I worked with a number of physicists working in climatography and oceanography. Thats pretty much their take too. The politics *baffle* them. Conservative politiciians declariing that theres some sort of sneaky conspiriacy going on, meanwhile actual scientists are just following the evidence where it leads, regardless of what the policy wonks proclaimed. Hell at one point conservative newspaper types started announcing some bad spooky conspiracy theory that the bureau of meteorology was lying about temperatures. Well II sure as fuck never heard about this sinister plot to lie about weatherr (FOR SOME REASON) when I was writing the bloody code running some of those "lying"weather statiions. I'm kinda glad I'm not in that job anymore, its frusturating as hell watching right wing newspaper and blog commenters straight up lie about you and not being able to do a damn thing about it, without gettiing in the target sights of some very shady campaiigners
But you made sweet, sweet grad school money I imagine (what, $35 or maybe even $40k a year!) off the government tit.
Is this intended as irony? I honestly can't tell.
When I was a grad student, my take-home pay was $667 a month. That was a long time ago, though.
That idea is part of what destroyed the very concept of America, the economy of which was built upon the premise of individual freedom from this type of oppression.
Your definition of "oppression" seems to be different from mine. Telling old people that they should just starve to death when they're too old to work seems a lot like oppression to me.
Tell you what, you pay my SS taxes and you can collect my SS payments. An offer that has NEVER been taken by ANY liberal. Funny how when it becomes optional, the "best thing in the world" suddenly isn't worth it.
So, I take it you didn't actually read what I wrote, right? It isn't intended to be the "best thing in the world."
Social security is intended to be a safety net. A safety net is most needed for the people who are so stupid that they think they don't need one.
Slashdot Mirror
A photon has no mass, because it travels at the speed of light. Nevertheless, due to energy-mass equivalence, it can exert gravitational effects.
A photon has no rest mass. It has gravitational mass: m = E/c^2
Physicists mostly use the term "mass" as shorthand to mean "rest mass". Mostly. But the word "mass" can have several possible meanings in physics, so if you want to be clear, you should specify which mass.
a photon is most certainly not an "object" using any ordinary definition of the term or even a definition that the vast majority of physicists would use
Absolutely right.
And furthermore, a photon was not even what was "teleported". What was "teleported" was the polarization state of the photon. That is even less an "object".
Nobody makes perovskite solar cells. They are one of MANY technologies that are being touted as the next great thing. Right now, their very high humidity sensitivity makes them not commercializable, but maybe someday.
But the article we are discussing was talking about today's technologies, not some other technology maybe possibly could be used in the future.
The article we are discussing is bullshit.
I hate to say it, but this is (1) not a "study"-- it's an opinion article, and
(2) the opinion expressed is unmitigated bullshit.
From the purported "study": "Solar panels contain toxic metals like lead, which can damage the nervous system, as well as chromium and cadmium, known carcinogens.
Notice that weasel word--materials "like" lead. Solar panels don't contain lead. Period. But the "study" didn't actually say they contained lead, did it? It said they contain materials "like" lead. What does that actually mean? Uh, I don't think it actually means anything whatsoever.
Likewise, solar panels don't contain chromium (you'd think this guy would go after cars, wouldn't he? They actually do use chromium.). And, while one type of panel does use cadmium (albeit in micron thicknesses)-- the vast majority of low cost solar panels sold are silicon solar cells, which do not contain cadmium.
Overall conclusion: this is not a "study," this is bullshit, pure and simple,
That goes in my quotable quotes file:
" if there's one lesson on how to do your part in an age of distributed truth, it's to speak the truth and to support those who do. It may be exhausting work but it's the best we can do for now."
Depends on the humidity.
You can survive well if you can sweat, but if humidity approaches 100%, you're dead.
Think back to your school days. There certainly were some subjects you had exactly zero interest in. Well? What did forcing you to learn that shit accomplish?
In fact, there are many many things in school that kids don't want to learn but are nevertheless valuable for them to have learned.
Do you remember anything, and if, enough to actually go into a profession that requires you to know anything about it?
That's your flaw right there. Coding is a knowledge set that has some value to know even if you don't go into a profession that requires coding. It teaches a way of logically understanding how a problem is broken down into a process, and how processes run. (And it also gives students some familiarity with what's inside the stuff that they will interact with every day of their lives, so that they understand it's code, it's not some sort of magic.)
Education is not simply job training.
This is quite horrifying. If Canada thinks that Canadian courts can order Google to delete results everywhere in the world, then the same argument says Chinese courts can order Google to delete results everywhere in the world.
Once again, since you missed it previously: /.) because it is camouflaged by the ubiquitous background of actual cluelessness.
Sarcasm is invisible on the internet (and especially on
Pretend cluelessness is indistinguishable from real cluelessness.
Lately for me (for about 2-3 weeks or so), that has been fucked up such that it is stuck at +3/+3, and when I try to change it in my account settings, the new setting doesn't get saved. Hey, Whipslash, wtf?
Lucky you, you only get the reasonable comments and not the idiots, clueless, and trolls.
A troll like this has more chance in its own thread. Sorry for outing you. By the way, when you were typing, you might have noticed a little red squiggly line under 'traveling'. That's because you spelled it wrong.
http://writingexplained.org/tr...
Intereresting data, but not in any way surprising.
"But the court said people can’t avoid the ban by entering into a relationship solely for the purpose of traveling to the U.S." = Nearly impossible to prosecute/prove, unless they're extremely lazy/careless.
Indeed. But, of course, if somebody gets banned from travel to the US, the burden of proof to show that the relationship is "bona fide" is on the person traveling, not on the government.
A statute, even one passed by Congress, is invalid if it abridges a constitutional right. Congress cannot give the president the power to take away rights guaranteed by the constitution.
The statute was signed by President Truman - a democrat. Obama signed a similar order to Trump except it was for a longer period of time and gave more advanced warning.
As has been pointed out many times elsewhere, the Obama restrictions may be "similar", but were not the same as the Trump restrictions:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/
http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/
Japan effectively blocks immigration and most travel from Islamic countries.
Japan does not have a first amendment protecting freedom of religion.
How many people looking to emigrate can't cultivate a 'bona-fide' relationship with a legitimate person in the US sufficient to make this claim?
From the linked article https://www.bloomberg.com/news...:
[people exempt from the ban] "includes people visiting a close family member, students who have been admitted to a university or workers who have accepted an employment offer, the court said. But the court said people can’t avoid the ban by entering into a relationship solely for the purpose of traveling to the U.S."
"Drivers will also get a cut of Uber's "teen fare" which had previously gone exclusively to Uber. "
Wait, what? Uber has been charging a special higher fare for teens... but the driver was (up until now) getting the same amount????
How does that make any sense? If there's a surcharge because teens are in some way harder to deal with-- what, do they damage the cars, or what?-- the driver is the one dealing with it-- the driver should get the surcharge and Uber get zero part of it.
Not much info about the teen surcharge, but here are a few comments. The drivers seem annoyed:
https://motherboard.vice.com/e...
https://www.reddit.com/r/uberd...
https://uberpeople.net/threads...
As I said. Just repeating libertarian trigger-words is not actually a form of thinking.
You know, just repeating libertarian trigger-words is not actually a form of thinking.
No, I said that a reasonable society might includes a safety net for its citizens. YOU were the one who called that "stealing" and "oppression".
Specifically, what I said was:
Hmm-- interesting idea. We could have a government-mandated plan that provides some sort of minimum benefits, which everybody pays into as part of their job, and that could be like a "safety net" applying to all employees, so they're not destitute even if their savings get drained and their company goes bankrupt. And then, companies could also offer benefits beyond this minimum, a "retirement plan," if you will, so people who worked for that company would have an income that's more than that safety-net minimum when they retire. A two-layer plan. The minimum plan would just be be security, be part of the overall social structure. Say, we could even call it that: "social security." Good name!
This is what reasonable societies do: provide for the general welfare of the citizens, even when they're too old to work.
But your proposal works, too-- if peoples' savings get drained and the company they'd worked for goes bankrupt, sure, just let them beg, and if they're not good at that, they can just starve to death. That's totally reasonable, I guess. It just depends on what kind of society you want.
Your libertarian ideology chooses to define any action by governments as "stealing."
When you define people working together to promote the common welfare-- an explicitly stated goal of the U.S. constitution, for what it's worth-- as "stealing," your use of language is Orwellian.
But it's amusing how you sprinkle libertarian trigger-words through your post. Everything is "collectivist" and "stealing" and "at the point of a gun." No need to do any actual thinking, just grep the appropriate libertarian catch-phrases and string them together.
Yes, by all means, we should take seriously your suggestion for an alternate safety net, that people should just do "GoFundMe" campaigns. No problem! Or they should "get some relatives." (Right. How exactly do you "get relatives"? Post on ask-slashdot?) Sure, that'll work.
Last job I had, I worked with a number of physicists working in climatography and oceanography. Thats pretty much their take too. The politics *baffle* them. Conservative politiciians declariing that theres some sort of sneaky conspiriacy going on, meanwhile actual scientists are just following the evidence where it leads, regardless of what the policy wonks proclaimed. Hell at one point conservative newspaper types started announcing some bad spooky conspiracy theory that the bureau of meteorology was lying about temperatures. Well II sure as fuck never heard about this sinister plot to lie about weatherr (FOR SOME REASON) when I was writing the bloody code running some of those "lying"weather statiions. I'm kinda glad I'm not in that job anymore, its frusturating as hell watching right wing newspaper and blog commenters straight up lie about you and not being able to do a damn thing about it, without gettiing in the target sights of some very shady campaiigners
But you made sweet, sweet grad school money I imagine (what, $35 or maybe even $40k a year!) off the government tit.
Is this intended as irony? I honestly can't tell.
When I was a grad student, my take-home pay was $667 a month. That was a long time ago, though.
That idea is part of what destroyed the very concept of America, the economy of which was built upon the premise of individual freedom from this type of oppression.
Your definition of "oppression" seems to be different from mine. Telling old people that they should just starve to death when they're too old to work seems a lot like oppression to me.
Here's the NASA link: https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/ne...
and here's the space.com story, with more details: https://www.space.com/37242-na...
Tell you what, you pay my SS taxes and you can collect my SS payments. An offer that has NEVER been taken by ANY liberal. Funny how when it becomes optional, the "best thing in the world" suddenly isn't worth it.
So, I take it you didn't actually read what I wrote, right? It isn't intended to be the "best thing in the world."
Social security is intended to be a safety net. A safety net is most needed for the people who are so stupid that they think they don't need one.