This is actually possible near the event horizon of a spinning blackhole. The zero energy state around a spinning blackhole is a particular orbit (I believe due to frame dragging, but I'm not positive), but a slower orbit must have lower energy which thus must be negative energy. The Penrose process uses this trick to extract energy from a blackhole.
Mostly it comes down to conservation of mass/energy. If we know we put 3 electrons and 20GeV of energy into the reaction chamber and got out 2 electrons, 10GeV and one unknown particle then that unknown particle must have a combined mass/energy to balance things out. (Remember that E=mc^2 so mass could have been converted to energy and vice vesa.)
So how did they measure the mass of the first particle? As one of the sibling posts said, put an electrically charged particle into a static electric field and watch how fast the field moves the particle (this can be observed at the macroscopic scale using gas bubble chambers).
Of course the above requires you to know the charge of the particle, so how do we measure the charge of an elementary particle? Simple! Fill the air with neutrally charged oil droplets and "spray" them with the particle. Some droplets will pick up 1 particle and some will pickup 2 or 3 or 4. Put them in a static electric field and measure how strong the field has to be to suspend the droplets against the force of gravity. You don't have to know which ones picked up how many particle, you just have to measure the difference in the required field strength. (See the Oil-drop experiment; note measuring the mass of oil droplets is hard be macroscopically possible.)
So in summary: we measure particle mass in terms of the masses of other particles. The first particle's mass was measured in terms of it's electric charge. The first particle's electric charge was measured in terms of how much force it imparted on an oil droplet. The oil droplet's mass was measured relative to a lump of platinum-iridium sitting in Paris. That lump was just pointed to and called 1 kilogram.
Even static electric and/or magnetic fields are transmitted via photons. They behave slightly differently than "regular" photons and so are called "virtual" photons, but they are no less real than the photons you are familiar with. (Explaining it further would require going into quantum theory.)
Sporting events have restrictions on the equipment that may be used. My guess is that his prosthetics don't qualify under the regulations for foot/leg-ware while clap skates do. At some level these regulations are arbitrary, but they are necessary to keep out the crazy stuff (e.g. bringing a bike to a foot race) and avoid some of the "exploits" in the game mechanic (e.g. baseball bats that are too long or filled with cork (which doesn't actually work but is an example to give you the idea)).
Black-body radiation is badly named. All objects emit black body radiation regardless of the object's reflective "color". Black-body radiation is basically the color the light an object emits due to how hot it is. In a pitch black room, this is the "color" of the object (*). It is dependent on temperature only and not the particular material.
(*) Technically the color of black-body radiation is usually calculated assuming the room is at the same temperature as the object, so the room will also be glowing at the same color and not be "pitch black". A hot body in a cool, pitch-black room will be approximately the same color, and is close enough that it usually doesn't matter.
A good analogy is cell phone and land line rates. In the USA, most people pay a flat rate for local calls on their land line, but have a limit on how long they can use their cell phone without steep overage charges. Not to say doing this for Internet is a good thing (I hated it when I was in UK), but it's not like the Internet is the only place we meet this kind of pricing.
Sir, I'm here to sell to you a new kind of solar cell. Invented by God himself and refined over billions of years, I present to you the Photosynthetic Light And Nitrogen Transmutator (PLANT). Buy our pre-assembled models or purchase our Self Expanding Energy Deployment System (SEEDS) to "grow" your own PLANT. They're available in both disposable (a.k.a. annual) and reusable models (a.k.a perennial). What you don't use one year can even be reused or recycled the next year. Buy now while supplies last!
Banks have a good reason to ensure that you are the owner of your account, but other forms of identification are more than able to handle that problem. The Real ID Act doesn't help this in any way.
The history of Social Security Numbers indicates that forms of national identity in the USA will be used for things they weren't originally intended for.
(If you want to get technical, it doesn't matter to the bank exactly who I am. All they care about is proving that I own the account or that I am not a high risk loan recipient and that they can get a hold of me if I fail to make payment. Practically this means they need to know who I am. This makes it justified for banks to ask for some proof of identity. There is no similar justification for Real ID.)
Besides the fact that the Real ID Act is a clear violation of the 10th amendment, I shouldn't have to prove who I am to board a plane (they aren't required for trains, cars, busses, subways, etc) and the bank should accept any reasonable proof that I am the owner of the account I am attempting to access (except for tax reasons they don't even need to know who I am, as long as they know I own the account).
If Social Security Numbers have tought us anything it is that any national means of identification will be abused until it is required for just about anything.
Seriously people, I'm all for civil liberties, but theres nothing wrong with have a solid method of making sure people are who they say they are and verifying they are allowed to get the identification they are allowed to get.
But to get on an airplane it shouldn't matter who I am.
We should have passed the original first amendment before the joint committee screwed it up. It would have contained a minimum number of representatives per X (I want to say 50,000) number of citizens. Then we would not have an apportionment problem.
6 friends informally deciding what to do is unwieldy but possibe.
600 delegates debating, amending, voting on amendments and voting on bills is unwieldy but just barely possible when using rules of order (I speak from experience).
6000 representitives (USA population / 50,000) just doesn't even come close to working.
Adding more chairs to the deck will just make the deck collapse.
You'd be surprised how hard it is to get anything done in a legislative body that large. I've been a delegate to the legislative bodies of national organizations involving 500+ voting members. That many people is just on the borderline of being unmanageable.
In a group that large everyone has an opinion, everyone wants to have their say before the vote. Well, maybe not everyone but a large enough fraction that debates on a single vote take half the day or more. If only 10% of a 500 member body want to speak for 5 min each, debate takes 4 hours. If you bump the number of members up to 5000 then it would take a week just to get through one debate.
(A second consequence of large legislative bodies is that is stops being about reasoning with individual representatives and starts being more about PR campaigns. Fortunately the Senate provides a balance against that so it's not as much of an issue in the US Congress.)
At such large sizes you have to add some hierarchy to manage the complexity. Perhaps what some companies do to manage shareholder meetings could be used. (I have no idea what they use.) Bottom line, a flat organization of a legislative body with membership into the four digit realm just doesn't work.
Yes the "can god make a ditch so big he can't jump across it" class of arguments might be rather futile, and trite. But even those have lead to advances in theology (Augustine, Anselm, etc...). Actually those are incredibly useful arguments. That one in particular proves that omnipotence is inherently self-contradictory, and thus does not exist. ... and is fundamental misunderstanding of what Theologians mean when they say "God is omnipotent". God may not be bound to the physical laws, but God is still bound by the laws of logic. "God is omnipotent" doesn't require "God could name a finite, integral number that is both even and not even".
After long thoughts this was the one that led me to believe that there is no God because it is not possible to form a scientific hypothesis about God that could be proven, thus the hypothesis itself is incorrect.
Your statements are partially true, but there are two flaws. First, the Scientific Method is a tool for gaining knowledge. It is a very powerful tool, but it is not the only tool and it doesn't always apply. Just because a particular topic can't be approached by that tool, doesn't mean the topic should be excluded from the pursuit of knowledge. Examples of this include:
Art - inherently subjective, but artistic knowledge isn't worthless (Ok, maybe that one is debatable)
History or Astronomy - no way to perform repeatable or controlled experiments; we can only infer from data that happens to be available
Logic, "Pure" Math, or Computability Theory - experiments are not a valid form of proof in these fields
Anything about personal relationships (e.g. does this person love me?)
The second flaw is that some questions have to be answered even in the absence of certainty. For example, "(During the cold war) Should we nuke Russia before they nuke us?", "Do I fold or call this poker hand?", "Can I save that drowning person or will I just get pulled as well?".
The Scientific method is nice when you can use it, but don't treat it like a religion. There are many ways to gain knowledge about the real universe. Some are even more reliable (e.g. logic proofs) or apply to more areas (e.g. historical evidence). Use the tool that fits the job.
A much better way to tell if I was lying is to ask, "From what vessel does the LIMA originate?" which probably only a cardiac surgeon would answer right away. This is what they do in Israel airline passenger screening for the majority of careers that a person could answer -- they also do this with geography (where you claim you are from) and things like this. This can detect lying -- somebody's transient "facial expressions" will not.
Cool, so where can I get a list of what questions they ask? It would be interesting... oh, wait, that would defeat the purpose. Hmm, I guess a potential terrorist should just answer "I flip hamburgers", it's fairly easy to become an expert in that.
P.S. At first I thought the question was asking "from where does the vessel (i.e. ship) LIMA (i.e. ship name) originate?"
... or even an effective way to get them education compared to other methods? Even in the USA, computers in the classroom haven't exactly been a resounding success; other methods of improving education can be more effective.
"Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it."
- L. Torvalds I know that's moded funny, but that might actually be a very good argument for "open sourcing" movies.
Ok, so I guess I'll have to hack the hardware. Put a chip inside the IDE drive so the act of imaging it triggers a self destruct. For bonus points, sue the government for destruction of your property when they "mishandle" the drive.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about the French revolution, but the Spanish Prisoner scam is basically a version of the 419 scam that is at least a century old.
You get a negative energy.
This is actually possible near the event horizon of a spinning blackhole. The zero energy state around a spinning blackhole is a particular orbit (I believe due to frame dragging, but I'm not positive), but a slower orbit must have lower energy which thus must be negative energy. The Penrose process uses this trick to extract energy from a blackhole.
Mostly it comes down to conservation of mass/energy. If we know we put 3 electrons and 20GeV of energy into the reaction chamber and got out 2 electrons, 10GeV and one unknown particle then that unknown particle must have a combined mass/energy to balance things out. (Remember that E=mc^2 so mass could have been converted to energy and vice vesa.)
So how did they measure the mass of the first particle? As one of the sibling posts said, put an electrically charged particle into a static electric field and watch how fast the field moves the particle (this can be observed at the macroscopic scale using gas bubble chambers).
Of course the above requires you to know the charge of the particle, so how do we measure the charge of an elementary particle? Simple! Fill the air with neutrally charged oil droplets and "spray" them with the particle. Some droplets will pick up 1 particle and some will pickup 2 or 3 or 4. Put them in a static electric field and measure how strong the field has to be to suspend the droplets against the force of gravity. You don't have to know which ones picked up how many particle, you just have to measure the difference in the required field strength. (See the Oil-drop experiment; note measuring the mass of oil droplets is hard be macroscopically possible.)
So in summary: we measure particle mass in terms of the masses of other particles. The first particle's mass was measured in terms of it's electric charge. The first particle's electric charge was measured in terms of how much force it imparted on an oil droplet. The oil droplet's mass was measured relative to a lump of platinum-iridium sitting in Paris. That lump was just pointed to and called 1 kilogram.
Any questions?
Even static electric and/or magnetic fields are transmitted via photons. They behave slightly differently than "regular" photons and so are called "virtual" photons, but they are no less real than the photons you are familiar with. (Explaining it further would require going into quantum theory.)
So which implementation is of Perl6 faster? Pugs or perl6 on parrot?
Sporting events have restrictions on the equipment that may be used. My guess is that his prosthetics don't qualify under the regulations for foot/leg-ware while clap skates do. At some level these regulations are arbitrary, but they are necessary to keep out the crazy stuff (e.g. bringing a bike to a foot race) and avoid some of the "exploits" in the game mechanic (e.g. baseball bats that are too long or filled with cork (which doesn't actually work but is an example to give you the idea)).
I look forward to beating you in the 100m dash with my rocket car.
Black isn't a good color to sneak around in the dark. It is to easy to spot because it contrasts too much with the stuff around you that isn't black.
Black-body radiation is badly named. All objects emit black body radiation regardless of the object's reflective "color". Black-body radiation is basically the color the light an object emits due to how hot it is. In a pitch black room, this is the "color" of the object (*). It is dependent on temperature only and not the particular material.
(*) Technically the color of black-body radiation is usually calculated assuming the room is at the same temperature as the object, so the room will also be glowing at the same color and not be "pitch black". A hot body in a cool, pitch-black room will be approximately the same color, and is close enough that it usually doesn't matter.
A good analogy is cell phone and land line rates. In the USA, most people pay a flat rate for local calls on their land line, but have a limit on how long they can use their cell phone without steep overage charges. Not to say doing this for Internet is a good thing (I hated it when I was in UK), but it's not like the Internet is the only place we meet this kind of pricing.
Sir, I'm here to sell to you a new kind of solar cell. Invented by God himself and refined over billions of years, I present to you the Photosynthetic Light And Nitrogen Transmutator (PLANT). Buy our pre-assembled models or purchase our Self Expanding Energy Deployment System (SEEDS) to "grow" your own PLANT. They're available in both disposable (a.k.a. annual) and reusable models (a.k.a perennial). What you don't use one year can even be reused or recycled the next year. Buy now while supplies last!
Banks have a good reason to ensure that you are the owner of your account, but other forms of identification are more than able to handle that problem. The Real ID Act doesn't help this in any way.
The history of Social Security Numbers indicates that forms of national identity in the USA will be used for things they weren't originally intended for.
(If you want to get technical, it doesn't matter to the bank exactly who I am. All they care about is proving that I own the account or that I am not a high risk loan recipient and that they can get a hold of me if I fail to make payment. Practically this means they need to know who I am. This makes it justified for banks to ask for some proof of identity. There is no similar justification for Real ID.)
Besides the fact that the Real ID Act is a clear violation of the 10th amendment, I shouldn't have to prove who I am to board a plane (they aren't required for trains, cars, busses, subways, etc) and the bank should accept any reasonable proof that I am the owner of the account I am attempting to access (except for tax reasons they don't even need to know who I am, as long as they know I own the account).
If Social Security Numbers have tought us anything it is that any national means of identification will be abused until it is required for just about anything.
But to get on an airplane it shouldn't matter who I am.
Wouldn't the Berne Convention make it hard for Sweden to implement this?
I guess they could always withdraw from the Convention, but almost certainly not without international political consequences.
Adding more chairs to the deck will just make the deck collapse.
You'd be surprised how hard it is to get anything done in a legislative body that large. I've been a delegate to the legislative bodies of national organizations involving 500+ voting members. That many people is just on the borderline of being unmanageable.
In a group that large everyone has an opinion, everyone wants to have their say before the vote. Well, maybe not everyone but a large enough fraction that debates on a single vote take half the day or more. If only 10% of a 500 member body want to speak for 5 min each, debate takes 4 hours. If you bump the number of members up to 5000 then it would take a week just to get through one debate.
(A second consequence of large legislative bodies is that is stops being about reasoning with individual representatives and starts being more about PR campaigns. Fortunately the Senate provides a balance against that so it's not as much of an issue in the US Congress.)
At such large sizes you have to add some hierarchy to manage the complexity. Perhaps what some companies do to manage shareholder meetings could be used. (I have no idea what they use.) Bottom line, a flat organization of a legislative body with membership into the four digit realm just doesn't work.
Your statements are partially true, but there are two flaws. First, the Scientific Method is a tool for gaining knowledge. It is a very powerful tool, but it is not the only tool and it doesn't always apply. Just because a particular topic can't be approached by that tool, doesn't mean the topic should be excluded from the pursuit of knowledge. Examples of this include:
The second flaw is that some questions have to be answered even in the absence of certainty. For example, "(During the cold war) Should we nuke Russia before they nuke us?", "Do I fold or call this poker hand?", "Can I save that drowning person or will I just get pulled as well?".
The Scientific method is nice when you can use it, but don't treat it like a religion. There are many ways to gain knowledge about the real universe. Some are even more reliable (e.g. logic proofs) or apply to more areas (e.g. historical evidence). Use the tool that fits the job.
Cool, so where can I get a list of what questions they ask? It would be interesting ... oh, wait, that would defeat the purpose. Hmm, I guess a potential terrorist should just answer "I flip hamburgers", it's fairly easy to become an expert in that.
P.S. At first I thought the question was asking "from where does the vessel (i.e. ship) LIMA (i.e. ship name) originate?"
... or even an effective way to get them education compared to other methods? Even in the USA, computers in the classroom haven't exactly been a resounding success; other methods of improving education can be more effective.
- L. Torvalds I know that's moded funny, but that might actually be a very good argument for "open sourcing" movies.
Great! So now I can destroy even more of my data with a single scratch.
Beware the power of the fingernail!
I honestly don't know my password. It is only stored in muscle memory.
Ok, so I guess I'll have to hack the hardware. Put a chip inside the IDE drive so the act of imaging it triggers a self destruct. For bonus points, sue the government for destruction of your property when they "mishandle" the drive.