Riding over rail tracks at an angle, sounds like the dizziness started before the accident.;) Glad you're alright, though.
You might have bonked your head pretty good if you remember it as being the back wheel getting stuck, but you went over the bars. It was probably the front wheel.
I've been insulting these idiots for decades, and they still keep spouting it off.
It isn't hard to find somebody who thinks seatbelts are dangerous, murderous devices, and part of a liberal conspiracy. Just ask anybody driving a jacked-up penis truck, where the truck is actually an ugly POS and not a nice new vehicle.
In Oregon, where we passed seatbelt laws by direct vote, the winning issue was secondary crashes. The driver needs to be able to control the vehicle after the initial contact, not to save their own life, but to avoid involving additional people in the accident. And the backseat passengers flying into the front will also be a problem there, so everybody in the car has to wear them.
In the back of a motorhome there is little danger of landing in the drivers lap, both because of the vehicle type, the low speed of the vehicle, etc., so it is not required there.
In the case of a cyclist getting squashed, the helmet might save their life; but it isn't going to save anybody else's life, and it isn't likely to reduce the chance of secondary accidents. So while the life-saving nature of helmets has a solid foundation, requiring them doesn't.
Right, helmets shift it over, and in the past, an accident involving the head was likely going to be fatal. Now those result in brain injury.
This is nothing at all like the seatbelt debate, where a small number of people are actually injured by the seatbelt when they likely wouldn't have been without it. That one is a weak debate, because of the huge number of lives saved, and the issue of secondary accidents.
Yes, the void is the part where those numbers change over time, sometimes for security reasons by the user, and people not in continuous contact then fall out of contact, and can't contact each other at all without going through a 3rd party; something that it is not normal to do unless you have a good reason to contact them.
I can open facebook and see what all my old friends from school are doing, who got married, whose profile picture is their kids and whose is their boat. If I really want to I can even send them a message, but in my case that is unlikely. I don't want to talk to them, I just want to know how they're doing. And since I care about some of these people, it gives me warm fuzzies to know I could easily talk to them if either of us had something to say.
And I only log in once a month. Probably 90% of my social circle from middle school is on there every day.
I did. In the early 90s I was doing a "mobile home wash and wax" business with my dad, and we would copy the reverse-directory from the library, and use that to cold-call everybody in a mobile home park. Otherwise the jobs come from all over, and we were taking the bus to the jobs so we needed them lumped together.
The difference isn't in people doing it, so much as there being enough communication going on that more people know about it.
But spam is not the point, not the point of the complaints, not the point of commentary in this story.
You're confused because you conflate sending private emails with "putting something on the internet." While it has always been assumed that a few sysadmins were reading your "private" emails, much as the postal inspector might open and re-seal your mail, there is a huge difference between sending a private email and "putting something on the internet."
Just like there is a difference between walking across my lawn with a package, and dumping the package out on my lawn.
Most of the businesses I go to are just fine selling me what I want to buy from them, and letting me go elsewhere for whatever I want. Places like Radio Shack that want to try really hard to get my phone number so they can spam me or sell me other crap, those are places I used to shop.
Nobody wants Google+. We don't want it "free," we don't want it toasted, we don't want it roasted, we don't want it in a tree. We don't want it at our doorstep at 3am with a shotgun, we don't want it on a game trail, we don't want it in our email, we don't want it on the run.
I love gmail. I used to love it for the user interface, but that... is actually really bad now. If I leave it open in a tab, something I used to do for months on end, it eats a whole core. Just gmail, eats a core by itself. To idle in a tab. When they make changes, what is the downside of letting me not change? Do they really think they benefit by forcing away the power-users who want to be able to keep using the same simple tool and be in control of it? The gmail interface sucks now, the only painless way to use gmail is with a dedicated email client. So the spam filter is the only thing that makes it better than other mail. People using other mail tell me that the other spam filters are good now, too. I still like gmail, but how much? Enough to want to be force-fed G+?
They aren't even good enough with cookies anymore to keep me logged into youtube with their silly G+ "page." I have to be very careful when I visit youtube not to click any up/down voting or anything, because it might have me "logged in" to youtube with an account that I have never ever ever typed into a youtube domain. Lame.
Oh, and opting out? Soooo 2001. If it is controversial, wait for people to opt in. If they don't, move on.
You know... if you think about those claims for a second... if you change specialties without making a name for yourself, and you're an academic... that clearly wasn't your specialty. You either weren't very special at it, or just didn't stick to it long enough for it to become a specialty.
Actually you seem to not even understand basic academic terms like "specialty."
So I do agree that you're probably very, no, "VERY" Special. But boredom is not the province of specialists. Or intellectuals in general.
Okay, and did you also collect those photons close to the source, to compare the measurements?
Just seeing a distant star doesn't give you experimental data that you can use to understand light from distant stars. You need an experiment that isolates the phenomena so that you can measure it precisely.
What you're saying is like saying that the flat earther doesn't need to go to the horizon to see what it really is in order to understand it, and pointing out they can already see the end of the Earth, why do they need to measure at both ends?
With dependents and low income, she'd likely get the full Earned Income Tax Credit if she earned any income or not. The incentive is that income in untaxed and won't reduce the credit.
20 hrs a week at wally world is less 1/6th the median wage. For a family of 5, that is less than 1/3 of the poverty level. Think about that. Even if she blew her boss and got a 40 hr week, she'd still be below poverty level. If she also got a raise... still below the poverty level.
Those jobs suck, and that life is scraping by. She'll probably live longer and have more surviving children than she would living in the woods gathering tubers and berries, but her quality of life is probably lower.
Sorry bucko, but they don't just claim it is the edge of what you can see. They claim it is the edge of what is see-able, and indeed, the edge of the whole Universe. The "little bang"-ers leave room for the other side to be pretty much the same Universe, but still deny you could see across it; mostly on the basis that they have never seen that far. But "Big Bang" really does claim there is a physical barrier, a physical event, that is very close to the edge (in time) of what can be seen.
It's kindof a lame attempt at calling me a troll if that is the best you can do is to intentionally miss my point, and just call names.
So let me just certify for you 100% that I was making a serious point. Okay, done, proven not a troll.
Just because you disagree, doesn't mean I wasn't serious, or that I was just saying it for some reason you made up.
If you can't consider what the alternative explanations for the data would be, you're multiple steps away from scientific thought.
That's the whole problem; if people won't consider alternate explanations, and won't admit the weakness of the data points involved, then we know already that they have a non-scientific, even anti-scientific, set of views. Which would explain why they were wrong substantially about the Solar heliosphere, something we just learned from Voyager 1.
We can predict events in an atom to a huge number of decimal places. We sent a spacecraft 100 AUs out, and our predictions are turnout out to be only roughly correct, and very wrong on some of the details, including major things that should be easy to predict if your model is good, like the magnetic fields. So if we couldn't get 100 AUs right, how sure of ourselves should be be about things 14B years away? 1 AU = light 8.3 minutes. The farthest we've gone and measured and been wrong is only 1/8865542168674th of the distance away that the "Big Bang" supposedly was. And tiny changes in the model for the "big bang" give vastly different results, which is why they fiddle their models of the different physics the Universe would have to have to match their model. Each of those little tweaks to the "laws of the physics" in the "early universe" is really another piece of proof that their models suck at 82298997340000000000000 miles.
In the Pacific Northwest there was heavy use of wood in home construction, including a well developed skill for board+wooden nail construction. Most families had square wooden boxes. You can get semantic on the fact that the logs were split into planks rather than milled, but after splitting the boards would be sawn to length. (with a stone hand tool) And there is a strong argument to be made that shaping wood with stone tools, such as in a dugout canoe, is "milling." Certainly if I was building one using modern technology, I would use a computer-controlled... milling machine. And while much quicker than a human with an adze, it is making the same type of movements to remove material in the same sort of way.
mill : noun 1. a factory for certain kinds of manufacture, as paper, steel, or textiles. 2. a building equipped with machinery for grinding grain into flour and other cereal products. 3. a machine for grinding, crushing, or pulverizing any solid substance: a coffee mill. 4. any of various machines that modify the shape or size of a workpiece by rotating tools or the work: rolling mill. 5. any of various other apparatuses for shaping materials or performing other mechanical operations.
So it all comes down to "machine" and "apparatus." I think it is clear that a purpose-built sawhorse for shaping cedar planks for use in water-proof storage boxes pretty much has to be a primitive mill. And if you're sawing across the wood with an adze, then it must be a saw mill.
If the "tired light hypothesis" was true, and the "observable" universe was actually much older than 14 billion years, if could be possible for a system at the edge of what we observe to take information it has observed from further way and repeat it in our direction. Thus, even if photons from further way could not make it to us, in theory information could -- potentially from a distributed internet spanning endless quadrillions of light years of space and time.
Sure, that's a great idea for an experiment: In a reflection, not all of the light actually bounces off the surface; some small percent of it the old photon is absorbed, and a new photon emitted to replace it. Reflection isn't entirely passive.
If we find a distant galaxy via a gravity lens, what percent of those photons are reflected photons that were re-emitted? How long would the telescope be running before we could find one? And, do we have any useful measurements to do if we did find one, or do we just know too little about how light looks over a long distance to make use of it?
Perhaps quantum computing will increase our knowledge of data storage in photons enough so that we can do some sort of useful measurement even if we did isolate a 25B year old reflection.
While we're throwing around reading lists, I recommend "Richard Feynman: A Life In Science" by John and Mary Gribbin. It goes into Feynman's refusal to directly challenge "big bang" (because it wasn't his specialty), and the lectures on edge data and flat earth that he would launch into when asked that question. It also goes into some technical issues involving his "reverse wave hypothesis" where it could actually be the limit of the reverse wave to propagate (in the future) that stops the photon being emitted unless it can find a target within ~14B years.
People think that skepticism is flamebait, wow, they're exceptional anti-scientific for people who probably think they're defending science.
There is really no reason to attach strong claims to the meaning of photons being shifted, without sending a precise, well-understood photon source into space, launching some uniform photons some great distance, and then receiving them at the other end. Then we would have some experimental data. As it is, we have photons that don't match the conditions in the lab, and a hypothesis that claims a reason; but it would require the Universe to be bounded in time right at the edge of the data we can collect, and even for the laws of physics to have been different in the past. They couldn't even fit the data, so they change the laws of physics over time to massage it into place. Maybe their answer is correct; but shouldn't they at least have an experiment that shows some more parts of this are true?
It is not like the radiation belts were right where they predicted, and the edge of the solar system is as predicted. The largest scales we're doing measurements of, the local neighborhood is not as predicted. If we can predict inside the atom to a bazillion decimal places, but we can't even get the cosmic neighborhood correct, how accurate are we likely to be 14B years with no experiment?
Nobody has measured what a photon looks like even at 1 AU, much less at a light year. That photons might get old is no less of a wild conjecture than anything else. That's just it, nobody is doing these experiments at a further distance than a lab bench. If photons getting old sounds contrived, it is supposed to.
The big bang is no less contrived; the edge of the data doesn't look as predicted, so they claim, "well, gee, I guess the laws of physics were different in the early universe!" Instead of saying, "well, gee, the experiment doesn't match our prediction, so our prediction was wrong."
Slashdot Mirror
Riding over rail tracks at an angle, sounds like the dizziness started before the accident. ;) Glad you're alright, though.
You might have bonked your head pretty good if you remember it as being the back wheel getting stuck, but you went over the bars. It was probably the front wheel.
Styrofoam will only protect you in low speed collisions
Oh noes! Maybe somebody will invent something made of a better material. Oh, I dunno, maybe paper.
Your doctor doesn't know what he's talking about.
Yeah, always trust a random anonymous idiot on the internet over a medical doctor.
Injuries others have suffered are not a subject for humor among adults,
Yes they are, unless the person died, and then only if they died stupidly. Or if they experienced brain damage, and haven't "overcome" the challenges.
I've been insulting these idiots for decades, and they still keep spouting it off.
It isn't hard to find somebody who thinks seatbelts are dangerous, murderous devices, and part of a liberal conspiracy. Just ask anybody driving a jacked-up penis truck, where the truck is actually an ugly POS and not a nice new vehicle.
In Oregon, where we passed seatbelt laws by direct vote, the winning issue was secondary crashes. The driver needs to be able to control the vehicle after the initial contact, not to save their own life, but to avoid involving additional people in the accident. And the backseat passengers flying into the front will also be a problem there, so everybody in the car has to wear them.
In the back of a motorhome there is little danger of landing in the drivers lap, both because of the vehicle type, the low speed of the vehicle, etc., so it is not required there.
In the case of a cyclist getting squashed, the helmet might save their life; but it isn't going to save anybody else's life, and it isn't likely to reduce the chance of secondary accidents. So while the life-saving nature of helmets has a solid foundation, requiring them doesn't.
Well that is good, having a financial interest implies it might be made into a product that you can actually buy.
Compare to a theoretical academic exercise, which isn't going to protect your head at all.
Right, helmets shift it over, and in the past, an accident involving the head was likely going to be fatal. Now those result in brain injury.
This is nothing at all like the seatbelt debate, where a small number of people are actually injured by the seatbelt when they likely wouldn't have been without it. That one is a weak debate, because of the huge number of lives saved, and the issue of secondary accidents.
But this one is rank absurdity.
Yes, the void is the part where those numbers change over time, sometimes for security reasons by the user, and people not in continuous contact then fall out of contact, and can't contact each other at all without going through a 3rd party; something that it is not normal to do unless you have a good reason to contact them.
I can open facebook and see what all my old friends from school are doing, who got married, whose profile picture is their kids and whose is their boat. If I really want to I can even send them a message, but in my case that is unlikely. I don't want to talk to them, I just want to know how they're doing. And since I care about some of these people, it gives me warm fuzzies to know I could easily talk to them if either of us had something to say.
And I only log in once a month. Probably 90% of my social circle from middle school is on there every day.
No, the G+ one is a different opt-out.
The gmail one it is a new setting added on the first tab (general), says "Who can email you via your Google+ profile?"
I did. In the early 90s I was doing a "mobile home wash and wax" business with my dad, and we would copy the reverse-directory from the library, and use that to cold-call everybody in a mobile home park. Otherwise the jobs come from all over, and we were taking the bus to the jobs so we needed them lumped together.
The difference isn't in people doing it, so much as there being enough communication going on that more people know about it.
But spam is not the point, not the point of the complaints, not the point of commentary in this story.
You're confused because you conflate sending private emails with "putting something on the internet." While it has always been assumed that a few sysadmins were reading your "private" emails, much as the postal inspector might open and re-seal your mail, there is a huge difference between sending a private email and "putting something on the internet."
Just like there is a difference between walking across my lawn with a package, and dumping the package out on my lawn.
Most of the businesses I go to are just fine selling me what I want to buy from them, and letting me go elsewhere for whatever I want. Places like Radio Shack that want to try really hard to get my phone number so they can spam me or sell me other crap, those are places I used to shop.
Nobody wants Google+. We don't want it "free," we don't want it toasted, we don't want it roasted, we don't want it in a tree.
We don't want it at our doorstep at 3am with a shotgun, we don't want it on a game trail, we don't want it in our email, we don't want it on the run.
I love gmail. I used to love it for the user interface, but that... is actually really bad now. If I leave it open in a tab, something I used to do for months on end, it eats a whole core. Just gmail, eats a core by itself. To idle in a tab. When they make changes, what is the downside of letting me not change? Do they really think they benefit by forcing away the power-users who want to be able to keep using the same simple tool and be in control of it? The gmail interface sucks now, the only painless way to use gmail is with a dedicated email client. So the spam filter is the only thing that makes it better than other mail. People using other mail tell me that the other spam filters are good now, too. I still like gmail, but how much? Enough to want to be force-fed G+?
They aren't even good enough with cookies anymore to keep me logged into youtube with their silly G+ "page." I have to be very careful when I visit youtube not to click any up/down voting or anything, because it might have me "logged in" to youtube with an account that I have never ever ever typed into a youtube domain. Lame.
Oh, and opting out? Soooo 2001. If it is controversial, wait for people to opt in. If they don't, move on.
In Soviet Russia, Shark+ jumps you!
You know... if you think about those claims for a second... if you change specialties without making a name for yourself, and you're an academic... that clearly wasn't your specialty. You either weren't very special at it, or just didn't stick to it long enough for it to become a specialty.
Actually you seem to not even understand basic academic terms like "specialty."
So I do agree that you're probably very, no, "VERY" Special. But boredom is not the province of specialists. Or intellectuals in general.
Okay, and did you also collect those photons close to the source, to compare the measurements?
Just seeing a distant star doesn't give you experimental data that you can use to understand light from distant stars. You need an experiment that isolates the phenomena so that you can measure it precisely.
What you're saying is like saying that the flat earther doesn't need to go to the horizon to see what it really is in order to understand it, and pointing out they can already see the end of the Earth, why do they need to measure at both ends?
Or, what if we just execute the mean people and be done with their flawed genes?
With dependents and low income, she'd likely get the full Earned Income Tax Credit if she earned any income or not. The incentive is that income in untaxed and won't reduce the credit.
20 hrs a week at wally world is less 1/6th the median wage. For a family of 5, that is less than 1/3 of the poverty level. Think about that. Even if she blew her boss and got a 40 hr week, she'd still be below poverty level. If she also got a raise... still below the poverty level.
Those jobs suck, and that life is scraping by. She'll probably live longer and have more surviving children than she would living in the woods gathering tubers and berries, but her quality of life is probably lower.
Yep. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair explores this condition and some of the details.
Not helping costs more than giving them money.
"Conservatives" don't care about saving money, especially if saving money accidentally helps the poor.
Sorry bucko, but they don't just claim it is the edge of what you can see. They claim it is the edge of what is see-able, and indeed, the edge of the whole Universe. The "little bang"-ers leave room for the other side to be pretty much the same Universe, but still deny you could see across it; mostly on the basis that they have never seen that far. But "Big Bang" really does claim there is a physical barrier, a physical event, that is very close to the edge (in time) of what can be seen.
It's kindof a lame attempt at calling me a troll if that is the best you can do is to intentionally miss my point, and just call names.
So let me just certify for you 100% that I was making a serious point. Okay, done, proven not a troll.
Just because you disagree, doesn't mean I wasn't serious, or that I was just saying it for some reason you made up.
If you can't consider what the alternative explanations for the data would be, you're multiple steps away from scientific thought.
That's the whole problem; if people won't consider alternate explanations, and won't admit the weakness of the data points involved, then we know already that they have a non-scientific, even anti-scientific, set of views. Which would explain why they were wrong substantially about the Solar heliosphere, something we just learned from Voyager 1.
We can predict events in an atom to a huge number of decimal places. We sent a spacecraft 100 AUs out, and our predictions are turnout out to be only roughly correct, and very wrong on some of the details, including major things that should be easy to predict if your model is good, like the magnetic fields. So if we couldn't get 100 AUs right, how sure of ourselves should be be about things 14B years away? 1 AU = light 8.3 minutes. The farthest we've gone and measured and been wrong is only 1/8865542168674th of the distance away that the "Big Bang" supposedly was. And tiny changes in the model for the "big bang" give vastly different results, which is why they fiddle their models of the different physics the Universe would have to have to match their model. Each of those little tweaks to the "laws of the physics" in the "early universe" is really another piece of proof that their models suck at 82298997340000000000000 miles.
In the Pacific Northwest there was heavy use of wood in home construction, including a well developed skill for board+wooden nail construction. Most families had square wooden boxes. You can get semantic on the fact that the logs were split into planks rather than milled, but after splitting the boards would be sawn to length. (with a stone hand tool) And there is a strong argument to be made that shaping wood with stone tools, such as in a dugout canoe, is "milling." Certainly if I was building one using modern technology, I would use a computer-controlled... milling machine. And while much quicker than a human with an adze, it is making the same type of movements to remove material in the same sort of way.
So it all comes down to "machine" and "apparatus." I think it is clear that a purpose-built sawhorse for shaping cedar planks for use in water-proof storage boxes pretty much has to be a primitive mill. And if you're sawing across the wood with an adze, then it must be a saw mill.
Consider also this city unearthed in the NE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_Site,_Wendat_(Huron)_Ancestral_Village
If the "tired light hypothesis" was true, and the "observable" universe was actually much older than 14 billion years, if could be possible for a system at the edge of what we observe to take information it has observed from further way and repeat it in our direction. Thus, even if photons from further way could not make it to us, in theory information could -- potentially from a distributed internet spanning endless quadrillions of light years of space and time.
Sure, that's a great idea for an experiment: In a reflection, not all of the light actually bounces off the surface; some small percent of it the old photon is absorbed, and a new photon emitted to replace it. Reflection isn't entirely passive.
If we find a distant galaxy via a gravity lens, what percent of those photons are reflected photons that were re-emitted? How long would the telescope be running before we could find one? And, do we have any useful measurements to do if we did find one, or do we just know too little about how light looks over a long distance to make use of it?
Perhaps quantum computing will increase our knowledge of data storage in photons enough so that we can do some sort of useful measurement even if we did isolate a 25B year old reflection.
While we're throwing around reading lists, I recommend "Richard Feynman: A Life In Science" by John and Mary Gribbin. It goes into Feynman's refusal to directly challenge "big bang" (because it wasn't his specialty), and the lectures on edge data and flat earth that he would launch into when asked that question. It also goes into some technical issues involving his "reverse wave hypothesis" where it could actually be the limit of the reverse wave to propagate (in the future) that stops the photon being emitted unless it can find a target within ~14B years.
People think that skepticism is flamebait, wow, they're exceptional anti-scientific for people who probably think they're defending science.
There is really no reason to attach strong claims to the meaning of photons being shifted, without sending a precise, well-understood photon source into space, launching some uniform photons some great distance, and then receiving them at the other end. Then we would have some experimental data. As it is, we have photons that don't match the conditions in the lab, and a hypothesis that claims a reason; but it would require the Universe to be bounded in time right at the edge of the data we can collect, and even for the laws of physics to have been different in the past. They couldn't even fit the data, so they change the laws of physics over time to massage it into place. Maybe their answer is correct; but shouldn't they at least have an experiment that shows some more parts of this are true?
It is not like the radiation belts were right where they predicted, and the edge of the solar system is as predicted. The largest scales we're doing measurements of, the local neighborhood is not as predicted. If we can predict inside the atom to a bazillion decimal places, but we can't even get the cosmic neighborhood correct, how accurate are we likely to be 14B years with no experiment?
Nobody has measured what a photon looks like even at 1 AU, much less at a light year. That photons might get old is no less of a wild conjecture than anything else. That's just it, nobody is doing these experiments at a further distance than a lab bench. If photons getting old sounds contrived, it is supposed to.
The big bang is no less contrived; the edge of the data doesn't look as predicted, so they claim, "well, gee, I guess the laws of physics were different in the early universe!" Instead of saying, "well, gee, the experiment doesn't match our prediction, so our prediction was wrong."