As observed from the rocket, clocks on Earth appear to have slowed down (by the same amount that the clocks on the rocket appear to have when viewed from the Earth).
This is the bit that's being contested. You can continue repeating it as many times as you want, but that doesn't really get us anywhere. Your assertion is - essentially - that time continues to pass at the same rate in both locations. Every other source says that an object traveling near the speed of light will experience time at a slower rate, so that - when it returns to it's starting point within the lifespan of those onboard - hundreds of years may have passed for those left behind. I'm open to having my mind changed, but you're going to have to do better than just flat assertions.
Light from the Earth appears red-shifted.
The universe appears red-shifted. When I'm driving down the road in my car, I could say that my house is actually driving away from me. But when the whole fucking planet is passing in the same direction, it seems a little egotistical to insist that my observation is the only one that matters, or even that they're both valid.
Actually, egotistical is the wrong word - fucking insane fits a lot better.
IIRC, your argument hinges on the idea that light observed to be coming from the earth will show the planet to be moving at a slower rate, which is true, just like it's true that my house appears to be moving away from me when I drive away. However, the twin paradox exists for a reason - we know that the person who actually IS traveling at velocities approaching C really will experience time at a slower rate, regardless of what he sees when he looks back at the earth. If it were true that both reference frames were equally valid, you'd see something different - both twins would see each other age more slowly while traveling away, and then see each other aging more quickly while traveling towards each other, with the end result that both would have aged exactly the same amount after being reunited. As long as we accept that this is not the case, we can safely say that time really does slow down as your velocity approaches the speed of light.
lol. Well, thanks. I don't know what I would have done if you hadn't stepped in with your extensive wikipedia-based education. Now perhaps you'd care to comment on what was actually being discussed?
No, to anyone capable of empathy, this is an example of how Sociopathic Libertarianism doesn't work.
Not that I have any intention of defending libertarianism.... but when empathy replaces common sense, you've got a serious problem. You fail at games theory.
Incidentally, this does well to highlight the fact that firefighters aren't "heroes," as some people like to think. They're government employees, and if they aren't getting paid, they won't do anything. It's a job, not heroism.
Bullshit. If a person had been trapped inside the house, there's no question that they would have gone in. There's a huge difference between risking your life in order to save people, and risking your life in order to save the property of a jackass who wasn't willing to pay you a measly $75.
Yah, if you had bothered to rad past the second sentence, you would have found that I already mentioned the problem with taking their testimony at face value. It doesn't change the fact that this particular case has little to do with 5th amendment protection, wouldn't apply in the majority of "encryption" cases, and will probably be overturned if he bothers to appeal. Go back and read what I wrote.
As for the other case, the question isn't about the guy's guilt, but whether the mere presence of encryption software should be allowed as corroborating evidence against an accused.
Any evidence can be used. I can point out that you wear yellow shoelaces. So what? The question isn't what was said, the question is what the judge and/or jury considered important. Or are you honestly arguing that a case should be dismissed just because the prosecutor made an irrelevant remark?
I've heard this argument before, and I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong. If all inertial reference frames were equally valid, there would be nothing to stop you from traveling faster than the speed of light. Also, looking out of your window and seeing the entire universe redshift might indicate that your speed is getting rather excessive. Either that, or you'd be standing there saying "wow, I'm standing completely still and the whole galaxy is moving at the speed of light!".
The argument appears relatively convincing at first glance, but creates all sorts of problems.
If that's going to be your argument, then maybe you can explain why the police can't get a warrant to have your 5th amendment rights suspended entirely?
You should set up multi-level encryption. Encrypt your mildly interesting stuff with one key, and the really nasty stuff with another. When they seize your computer, let them beat you for a bit, then give up the mildly interesting key. They'll give you an ice-pack, and when they find the deeper encryption, just say, "that's old junk, I forgot the password to that, and never got around to deleting it."
Right. Because after beating you the first time, they'll feel really bad and say "aw, that's ok, if you just forgot the password then there's nothing you can do about it! Here, why don't we buy you a nice steak dinner and get our limo driver to give you a ride home".
Eh. The Boucher case is a special one, because the idiot was stupid enough to first show his child-porn collection to a law enforcement officer, and then - after the computer was rebooted - refused to provide the password. Initially the state ruled that he couldn't be forced to divulge the password, and in most cases this would hold; however, due to the fact that the presence of child porn on his computer had already been verified, the appeals court ruled that he isn't protected under the 5th. The problem here is that their definition of "already verified" is too loose, because it depends solely on the testimony of the arresting officer(s). Now, if the cops had had the common sense to take a few pictures of the laptop screen, then there would be no issue at all. As it is, if he appeals I'd say he has a pretty good chance of having the decision overturned.
As for the second case, you're talking about a guy who was convicted based on multiple lines of evidence, and is now bitching because the state lawyer happened to mention that "encryption programs" were present on the computer. That's asinine.
If anything, Britain has stronger protection of individual rights than we have here in the US
Thanks for the lulz:)
Re:Never thought I would defend Iran, but...
on
Stuxnet Worms On
·
· Score: 1
News flash, transsexualism and homosexuality are two very different things
Yep. This is especially troubling since only a minority of male-to-female transsexuals are "heterosexual"; in other words, men who get a sex change in order to become women are more likely to be attracted to women than to men. Which raises the question... will the government of Iran pay to have a man made into a woman... only to then execute "her" for having sex with a woman?
Ah. So screw our food supply, it's not important. And if an outbreak happens to kill millions of people, well, screw them too. BTW, who gets to make this "last resort" decision? Who are you willing to give the power to decide whether you and your family live or die?
Because the end result would be random. In order to get code which performs a particular function, you'd have to carefully define the selection criteria, which would be just as complex as writing the damn code yourself.
On the other hand, we ARE using genetic algorithms to create optimized solutions for projects where it can actually help. For instance, IIRC the Japanese used it to develop an optimized folding pattern for the solar-sail on the last spacecraft they launched. If what you're looking for is simple to define then genetic algorithms work great; otherwise, not so much.
If we could have code as elegant as the cell , dna , etc that would be awesome
Given that most of our DNA serves no useful function, and considering all the viruses which we're constantly being infected by, I wouldn't exactly call it elegant. We're like the Windows ME of biological systems. Natural selection has done some amazing things over the last billion years, but give us a few hundred more to figure things out and we'll be able to do a hell of a lot better.
This is a perfect example of unintended consequences, where antibiotics cure human disease, but then the germs "fight back" and revive in a more deadly form which we don't know how to stop.
I think you're bastardizing the phrase "unintended consequence" there. If you pick a fight with me and I kick your ass, it's not an "unintended consequence" when you come back with a baseball bat.
Also... are you proposing a solution, or just complaining? Are you suggesting that we should just ignore them, and hope they go away?
I promise, the lack of a feeling of safety and comfort doesn't impair the vehicle's function in any way.
No, but the poor safety standards have a high potential to impair your function, radically. As for comfort... hey, you can sleep on a concrete slab and wipe your ass with acorns, if you want, or if that's the best you can afford; the rest of us choose not to.
Dunno. The article actually lists the figures in litres - I was just going with the gallon figure that he provided. If we go all metric it works out to 60 litres for 800 kilometres. That's 7.5 litres per 100km.
For anyone actually looking for some answers though, the article doesn't say anything about its actual fuel efficiency.
Um, yes it does. It says it'll get something like 66 miles on electric, and has a combined range of about 560 miles. Leaving aside the electric bit, that means you're getting roughly 500 miles for 16 gallons, or 31.25 miles per gallon. Assuming their figures are correct.
Its awesome that it can run on diesel, biofuel, natural gas, or LP. I wonder if it can run on a combination, or if you can only have one type of fuel at a time.
It's a jet turbine - you could mix all 4 and throw in some Tang for good measure, and it'll still run. Of course, you'll get decreased performance and some funky looking exhaust, but it'll run.
It also has a nice feature of letting me take it oversea's and as long as i have a high speed connection, i can still make any phone calls back to north america for free.
Congrats - you've just described every VOIP service in existence.
Slashdot Mirror
As observed from the rocket, clocks on Earth appear to have slowed down (by the same amount that the clocks on the rocket appear to have when viewed from the Earth).
This is the bit that's being contested. You can continue repeating it as many times as you want, but that doesn't really get us anywhere. Your assertion is - essentially - that time continues to pass at the same rate in both locations. Every other source says that an object traveling near the speed of light will experience time at a slower rate, so that - when it returns to it's starting point within the lifespan of those onboard - hundreds of years may have passed for those left behind. I'm open to having my mind changed, but you're going to have to do better than just flat assertions.
Light from the Earth appears red-shifted.
The universe appears red-shifted. When I'm driving down the road in my car, I could say that my house is actually driving away from me. But when the whole fucking planet is passing in the same direction, it seems a little egotistical to insist that my observation is the only one that matters, or even that they're both valid.
Actually, egotistical is the wrong word - fucking insane fits a lot better.
IIRC, your argument hinges on the idea that light observed to be coming from the earth will show the planet to be moving at a slower rate, which is true, just like it's true that my house appears to be moving away from me when I drive away. However, the twin paradox exists for a reason - we know that the person who actually IS traveling at velocities approaching C really will experience time at a slower rate, regardless of what he sees when he looks back at the earth. If it were true that both reference frames were equally valid, you'd see something different - both twins would see each other age more slowly while traveling away, and then see each other aging more quickly while traveling towards each other, with the end result that both would have aged exactly the same amount after being reunited. As long as we accept that this is not the case, we can safely say that time really does slow down as your velocity approaches the speed of light.
lol. Well, thanks. I don't know what I would have done if you hadn't stepped in with your extensive wikipedia-based education. Now perhaps you'd care to comment on what was actually being discussed?
As long as the disk isn't encrypted...
As long as gravity isn't working, there's nothing stopping me from flying.
Obvious troll is obvious.
No, to anyone capable of empathy, this is an example of how Sociopathic Libertarianism doesn't work.
Not that I have any intention of defending libertarianism .... but when empathy replaces common sense, you've got a serious problem. You fail at games theory.
Incidentally, this does well to highlight the fact that firefighters aren't "heroes," as some people like to think. They're government employees, and if they aren't getting paid, they won't do anything. It's a job, not heroism.
Bullshit. If a person had been trapped inside the house, there's no question that they would have gone in. There's a huge difference between risking your life in order to save people, and risking your life in order to save the property of a jackass who wasn't willing to pay you a measly $75.
That's not usually an issue for these areas - the nearest neighbor is probably a mile or more away.
No, it hadn't. By the officer's own statement ...
Yah, if you had bothered to rad past the second sentence, you would have found that I already mentioned the problem with taking their testimony at face value. It doesn't change the fact that this particular case has little to do with 5th amendment protection, wouldn't apply in the majority of "encryption" cases, and will probably be overturned if he bothers to appeal. Go back and read what I wrote.
As for the other case, the question isn't about the guy's guilt, but whether the mere presence of encryption software should be allowed as corroborating evidence against an accused.
Any evidence can be used. I can point out that you wear yellow shoelaces. So what? The question isn't what was said, the question is what the judge and/or jury considered important. Or are you honestly arguing that a case should be dismissed just because the prosecutor made an irrelevant remark?
I've heard this argument before, and I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong. If all inertial reference frames were equally valid, there would be nothing to stop you from traveling faster than the speed of light. Also, looking out of your window and seeing the entire universe redshift might indicate that your speed is getting rather excessive. Either that, or you'd be standing there saying "wow, I'm standing completely still and the whole galaxy is moving at the speed of light!".
The argument appears relatively convincing at first glance, but creates all sorts of problems.
If that's going to be your argument, then maybe you can explain why the police can't get a warrant to have your 5th amendment rights suspended entirely?
Yeah, it would. Or it would under the definition of most governments, anyway.
You should set up multi-level encryption. Encrypt your mildly interesting stuff with one key, and the really nasty stuff with another. When they seize your computer, let them beat you for a bit, then give up the mildly interesting key. They'll give you an ice-pack, and when they find the deeper encryption, just say, "that's old junk, I forgot the password to that, and never got around to deleting it."
Right. Because after beating you the first time, they'll feel really bad and say "aw, that's ok, if you just forgot the password then there's nothing you can do about it! Here, why don't we buy you a nice steak dinner and get our limo driver to give you a ride home".
Eh. The Boucher case is a special one, because the idiot was stupid enough to first show his child-porn collection to a law enforcement officer, and then - after the computer was rebooted - refused to provide the password. Initially the state ruled that he couldn't be forced to divulge the password, and in most cases this would hold; however, due to the fact that the presence of child porn on his computer had already been verified, the appeals court ruled that he isn't protected under the 5th. The problem here is that their definition of "already verified" is too loose, because it depends solely on the testimony of the arresting officer(s). Now, if the cops had had the common sense to take a few pictures of the laptop screen, then there would be no issue at all. As it is, if he appeals I'd say he has a pretty good chance of having the decision overturned.
As for the second case, you're talking about a guy who was convicted based on multiple lines of evidence, and is now bitching because the state lawyer happened to mention that "encryption programs" were present on the computer. That's asinine.
If anything, Britain has stronger protection of individual rights than we have here in the US
Thanks for the lulz :)
News flash, transsexualism and homosexuality are two very different things
Yep. This is especially troubling since only a minority of male-to-female transsexuals are "heterosexual"; in other words, men who get a sex change in order to become women are more likely to be attracted to women than to men. Which raises the question ... will the government of Iran pay to have a man made into a woman ... only to then execute "her" for having sex with a woman?
According to wikipedia, the average speed driven on the autobahn is 134 km/h (83.75 mph).
Ah. So screw our food supply, it's not important. And if an outbreak happens to kill millions of people, well, screw them too. BTW, who gets to make this "last resort" decision? Who are you willing to give the power to decide whether you and your family live or die?
Just avoid getting in a wreck
Right! Don't wear a condom, just pull out!
I hope you live long enough to figure out your error.
Oh, ok. So your solution is "surrender". Gotcha.
why don't we use that same process to write code?
Because the end result would be random. In order to get code which performs a particular function, you'd have to carefully define the selection criteria, which would be just as complex as writing the damn code yourself.
On the other hand, we ARE using genetic algorithms to create optimized solutions for projects where it can actually help. For instance, IIRC the Japanese used it to develop an optimized folding pattern for the solar-sail on the last spacecraft they launched. If what you're looking for is simple to define then genetic algorithms work great; otherwise, not so much.
If we could have code as elegant as the cell , dna , etc that would be awesome
Given that most of our DNA serves no useful function, and considering all the viruses which we're constantly being infected by, I wouldn't exactly call it elegant. We're like the Windows ME of biological systems. Natural selection has done some amazing things over the last billion years, but give us a few hundred more to figure things out and we'll be able to do a hell of a lot better.
This is a perfect example of unintended consequences, where antibiotics cure human disease, but then the germs "fight back" and revive in a more deadly form which we don't know how to stop.
I think you're bastardizing the phrase "unintended consequence" there. If you pick a fight with me and I kick your ass, it's not an "unintended consequence" when you come back with a baseball bat.
Also ... are you proposing a solution, or just complaining? Are you suggesting that we should just ignore them, and hope they go away?
I promise, the lack of a feeling of safety and comfort doesn't impair the vehicle's function in any way.
No, but the poor safety standards have a high potential to impair your function, radically. As for comfort ... hey, you can sleep on a concrete slab and wipe your ass with acorns, if you want, or if that's the best you can afford; the rest of us choose not to.
Dunno. The article actually lists the figures in litres - I was just going with the gallon figure that he provided. If we go all metric it works out to 60 litres for 800 kilometres. That's 7.5 litres per 100km.
For anyone actually looking for some answers though, the article doesn't say anything about its actual fuel efficiency.
Um, yes it does. It says it'll get something like 66 miles on electric, and has a combined range of about 560 miles. Leaving aside the electric bit, that means you're getting roughly 500 miles for 16 gallons, or 31.25 miles per gallon. Assuming their figures are correct.
Its awesome that it can run on diesel, biofuel, natural gas, or LP. I wonder if it can run on a combination, or if you can only have one type of fuel at a time.
It's a jet turbine - you could mix all 4 and throw in some Tang for good measure, and it'll still run. Of course, you'll get decreased performance and some funky looking exhaust, but it'll run.
It also has a nice feature of letting me take it oversea's and as long as i have a high speed connection, i can still make any phone calls back to north america for free.
Congrats - you've just described every VOIP service in existence.