An anti-proton and an electron have similar charges... negative. Thus they repulse each other and cannot come together as an atom, as the electromagnetic forces repulse.
Positronium is an analog of Hydrogen, just since the mass is smaller, the spectral bars from it are in a different location.
Still... the question is, where is this homeopath making positronium?
It means that chemically, there is an "atom" there, but that no one knows what is actually in the nucleus, or trapping the electron at all. Something is, but no one knows what is in there. Likely, nothing... it's the magnetic field making the electron act like there's an atom there.
Jesus! Where is this guy even GETTING positronium.
According to Wikipedia, Positronium has three different lifetimes depending upon how the positron is compared to the atom. Either picoseconds, or at best, they think about 1.1 millisecond.
Unless this guy is making his positronium _IN_ the water... hell, it won't even MAKE it to the proving phase where you bang it...
Not to mention positrons are extremely expensive... we've spent millions if not billions of dollars on anti-mater, and we've made maybe a gram. Such that we don't even know the half-life of positronium... we can't get enough of it to EVEN TEST THAT. (That means, even two positronium atoms, lol)
So, not like it's hard to figure out that this guy is talking out of his butt (he's a homeopath) but this is even easier than most of their "all-natural cures"... of course it's all-natural, US law requires that it be distilled until there is only solute left... yes, water is "all-natural", thanks jerks... you make bottled water look like charity.
Everyone warns me about that. I've been in 2 big crashes, one of them was caused by me and me alone. The second, the driver never clipped me, I simply lost control while avoiding him.
* Half of the fatalities are related to negotiating a curve prior to the crash * High blood alcohol levels are a major problem among motorcycle operators * More motorcyclist fatalities are occurring on rural roads * Undivided roadways account for a majority of the fatalities * Collision with a fixed object is a significant factor in over half of the fatalities
Honestly, driving a motorcycle, I can tell you that most of the risks are actually a lot lower than you would think. Your biggest dangers are not other drivers, they're your inability to properly take a corner, as well as alcohol. In terms of dying from it? You're far more likely to be hurt/killed hitting a stationary object, than a car.
The results? People cut people off occasionally, it always happens. However, a motorcycle is much smaller and more maneuverable. You have three "lanes" per single lane that a car has. Someone cuts you off? You pull to the far end of your lane, break, and honk your horn loudly.
You're simply more likely to get hurt if you hit a car... nothing hard to figure out there, physics, and "bash value". What with people driving huge SUVs, being in a Prius doesn't give you all that much better protection.
Take a for instance. A car and a motorcycle are simultaneously clipped from behind. The car spins out crashes, pieces of the vehicle impacting inwards upon the passengers, who are not protected against that stuff. The motorcycle spins, slides, and dumps the rider who also starts sliding. If they're intelligent, they have good gear on, and go "WEEEEEE!" while they slide down the road. If they don't have good gear they go "SCRAPE!!!" while they slide down the road.
Basically, if you're wearing the right safety gear, you're probably no more likely to die in a crash than a person in a car... unless you hit a stationary object... then you don't have a lot of metal in the way to stop a lot of the impact force... of course, in a car such objects (such as improperly installed guardrails that run through your car) can also be really dangerous to passengers, and you don't have the benefit of a nice helmet to protect you.
Why do you think race car drivers have bunchs of safety gear? They deck out almost like the motorcyclist. The reason? Cars don't really give as much protection as people think... in fact, they can sometimes be a DANGER to the occupants.
The new molecule was first discovered by Sven Rogge and his colleagues at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. His team was experimenting on impurities in nano-scale transistors. They found that a single atom was transporting electrons, but could not find the impurity responsible. It turned out it was not an impurity, but a synthetic atom with an unknown proton/neutron character, created by the electrical current. The exotic atom was flat and formed a molecule with an arsenic atom on the transistor.
Yeah, the title of this should be "found a flat 'atom'" which should be in quotes, not the "flat" part.
The artifact is definitely flat, but the "atom" is a virtual one. Much like an atom of Positronium, where an electron is circling around a positron (anti-electron). Positronium acts chemically exactly like Hydrogen, because chemistry is based on the electron shell, not the actual atom inside (the different elements are all distinguished by how many electrons they have in orbit, as well how much or little they want to keep electrons.)
So, this "atom" that they're referring to doesn't actually exist as a "physical" object, but rather it's an artifact as you mentioned, and if an electron were to just kind of oddly orbit around an empty space, chemically, it's a hydrogen atom.
Thanks for your input. I definitely learned a lot from this information. I was working under the presumption of a blanket requirement (which even were it the case, and as ridiculous as it would be, would still be legal.) Your explanation however makes a lot more sense.
I think it's a matter of the people filing the suit conflating the meanings of "investigate".
Although I know exactly whom you're talking about, and were I one of them, I definitely wouldn't use "he" as the pronoun for someone who's sex can be determined. Perhaps a petition could be put to Slashdot to have girls' posts identified by color?
On an off note, wouldn't it be an oxymoron to use the word "definitely" or "certainly" with a verb in the subjective mood? After all, were it a certainty, then the subjunctive mood would be unnecessary.
I totally agree with you. The solution is not to go to the courts, it's to go to the legislature.
The other thing I just realized, this won't even pass Ration basis review for a lightly protected minority. There is a meaningful and purposeful reason that the legislature passed the law.
Does it suck to be a computer repair technician in Texas now? Yeah, it does. However, since the law applies to all computer repair people, and has a rational reason why one would restrict it.
Like I said before, barring Texans having the right in Texas to pursue any field of work that they wish, and/or specifically to pursue work in the computer repair... this litigation will get beat down so fast, the plaintiffs might get dizzy.
There are no evidence collection rules about trash. The owner of that item has already released ownership and rights to keep it from search and seizure.
Here is a hint for you. If you throw something illegal away, you're an idiot, because cops don't need anyone's permission to collect that evidence anymore.
I think the biggest issue here, is that police and other criminology people are concerned that if a computer tech stumbles across illegal information on a computer, that since they are not a licensed private investigator, the evidence cannot in any way be used. Even if say, it's for a child-pornography case. "Your evidence was siezed improperly, sorry, but it's excluded, next time do things the right way!"
I guess that we should also make anyone who develops photos get a PI license as well. That's a great way to boost salaries at Walmart.
Interesting idea... it's still up to the state to decide so. If the legislature feels that its likely enough that a photo development person will have to deal with collecting evidence, then yeah, they could require a PI license.
And honestly, no one can complain... there's no right to work in any field at all.
We require licenses of many different professions, doctors, medical professionals, accountants even. Sorry, but unfortunately, saying "I have plenty of happy customers that are willing to have me repair their computers" doesn't justify this anymore than a doctor practicing medicine without a license can say "but they're totally accepting of my care, even though I'm unlicensed."
Yes, but we don't require accountants to have medical licenses or doctors to be bar certified.
That's what requiring PC techs to have PI certifications is equivalent to.
No, you've conflated the issue here with certifications and licenses that are not valid analogies.
This is not asking PC repair people to get a license entirely outside of their field. The point is that if a PC repair person does any form of "investigation" on a computer, then they must be PI license. Technically, if you don't do any investigation at all, you don't need a PI license.
The issue here is protecting the consumer and law groups against improper evidence collection during an investigation by someone who is not a police officer.
Doctors require a license as a way for laymen to distinguish between a quack who might kill you and someone learned who might kill you.
Structural engineers need a license so you can have a reasonable expectation that what they design wont fall down on people.
It isn't unusual to have to have a license to work in a particular field. What is unusual is to be required to have a license for a field relatively unrelated. It's rediculous to require structural engineers to get a medical license just because they build hospitals.
Yes, what you describe is ridiculous. However, a structural engineer can't architect a building. That's much closer to what we're talking about.
In any case, in some states, individuals installing cable, and security systems are required to have a Journeyman's License in order to do what is called "low-voltage" electric work. Other states? No requirement at all.
The whole thing about a PI license, is that businesses can enforce some laws. Just the government wants to make sure that they understand evidentiary requirements, and proper handling so that they don't contaminate the evidence.
With a PI license, they can say, "we found child porn on his computer, and here is the chain of possession, etc." If they planted the evidence then they're subject to significantly harsher penalties, because they're license, and cannot argue that they were unaware of the rules regarding evidence collection.
A garbage man doesn't need a PI license, as what he is always dealing with is disposed-of materials, the person has already given up all rights regarding that item.
It's perfectly legal for police to take any evidence at all that is located in trash. It's a common thing in some TV shows (kind of over-using the issue, but it's still a valid point). Have a person drink from a cup, then convince them to leave it there. Say, with a paper cup. Congratulations, they just trashed it, and you can legally obtain it no matter what.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is offtopic to the article, but ontopic to the parent post.
Just because the Mayans calendar ended then means what exactly? They didn't even invent, let alone UTILIZE the wheel...
I'm glad this was modded funny and not informative, every time someone says this I die a little inside...
The Mayan calendar isn't ending... they're just adding a new digit... much like what will happen in the year 9999 for us.
An anti-proton and an electron have similar charges... negative. Thus they repulse each other and cannot come together as an atom, as the electromagnetic forces repulse.
Positronium is an analog of Hydrogen, just since the mass is smaller, the spectral bars from it are in a different location.
Still... the question is, where is this homeopath making positronium?
It means that chemically, there is an "atom" there, but that no one knows what is actually in the nucleus, or trapping the electron at all. Something is, but no one knows what is in there. Likely, nothing... it's the magnetic field making the electron act like there's an atom there.
Still, this is way cool... imaginary matter!
Jesus! Where is this guy even GETTING positronium.
According to Wikipedia, Positronium has three different lifetimes depending upon how the positron is compared to the atom. Either picoseconds, or at best, they think about 1.1 millisecond.
Unless this guy is making his positronium _IN_ the water... hell, it won't even MAKE it to the proving phase where you bang it...
Not to mention positrons are extremely expensive... we've spent millions if not billions of dollars on anti-mater, and we've made maybe a gram. Such that we don't even know the half-life of positronium... we can't get enough of it to EVEN TEST THAT. (That means, even two positronium atoms, lol)
So, not like it's hard to figure out that this guy is talking out of his butt (he's a homeopath) but this is even easier than most of their "all-natural cures"... of course it's all-natural, US law requires that it be distilled until there is only solute left... yes, water is "all-natural", thanks jerks... you make bottled water look like charity.
Everyone warns me about that. I've been in 2 big crashes, one of them was caused by me and me alone. The second, the driver never clipped me, I simply lost control while avoiding him.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/crash.htm
Important notes:
* Half of the fatalities are related to negotiating a curve prior to the crash
* High blood alcohol levels are a major problem among motorcycle operators
* More motorcyclist fatalities are occurring on rural roads
* Undivided roadways account for a majority of the fatalities
* Collision with a fixed object is a significant factor in over half of the fatalities
Honestly, driving a motorcycle, I can tell you that most of the risks are actually a lot lower than you would think. Your biggest dangers are not other drivers, they're your inability to properly take a corner, as well as alcohol. In terms of dying from it? You're far more likely to be hurt/killed hitting a stationary object, than a car.
The results? People cut people off occasionally, it always happens. However, a motorcycle is much smaller and more maneuverable. You have three "lanes" per single lane that a car has. Someone cuts you off? You pull to the far end of your lane, break, and honk your horn loudly.
You're simply more likely to get hurt if you hit a car... nothing hard to figure out there, physics, and "bash value". What with people driving huge SUVs, being in a Prius doesn't give you all that much better protection.
Take a for instance. A car and a motorcycle are simultaneously clipped from behind. The car spins out crashes, pieces of the vehicle impacting inwards upon the passengers, who are not protected against that stuff. The motorcycle spins, slides, and dumps the rider who also starts sliding. If they're intelligent, they have good gear on, and go "WEEEEEE!" while they slide down the road. If they don't have good gear they go "SCRAPE!!!" while they slide down the road.
Basically, if you're wearing the right safety gear, you're probably no more likely to die in a crash than a person in a car... unless you hit a stationary object... then you don't have a lot of metal in the way to stop a lot of the impact force... of course, in a car such objects (such as improperly installed guardrails that run through your car) can also be really dangerous to passengers, and you don't have the benefit of a nice helmet to protect you.
Why do you think race car drivers have bunchs of safety gear? They deck out almost like the motorcyclist. The reason? Cars don't really give as much protection as people think... in fact, they can sometimes be a DANGER to the occupants.
Rereading your comment:
Yeah, the title of this should be "found a flat 'atom'" which should be in quotes, not the "flat" part.
The artifact is definitely flat, but the "atom" is a virtual one. Much like an atom of Positronium, where an electron is circling around a positron (anti-electron). Positronium acts chemically exactly like Hydrogen, because chemistry is based on the electron shell, not the actual atom inside (the different elements are all distinguished by how many electrons they have in orbit, as well how much or little they want to keep electrons.)
So, this "atom" that they're referring to doesn't actually exist as a "physical" object, but rather it's an artifact as you mentioned, and if an electron were to just kind of oddly orbit around an empty space, chemically, it's a hydrogen atom.
It's too late... I'm oddly attracted to you, and cannot stop thinking about you.
PLEASE, come and make me a woman!
Thanks for your input. I definitely learned a lot from this information. I was working under the presumption of a blanket requirement (which even were it the case, and as ridiculous as it would be, would still be legal.) Your explanation however makes a lot more sense.
I think it's a matter of the people filing the suit conflating the meanings of "investigate".
"On his property"... key words there.
Although I know exactly whom you're talking about, and were I one of them, I definitely wouldn't use "he" as the pronoun for someone who's sex can be determined. Perhaps a petition could be put to Slashdot to have girls' posts identified by color?
On an off note, wouldn't it be an oxymoron to use the word "definitely" or "certainly" with a verb in the subjective mood? After all, were it a certainty, then the subjunctive mood would be unnecessary.
Right, so you're getting pretty equivalent gas mileage to my motorcycle (except I regularly get about 5mpg more)...
For that you paid like $20k more than me, and you have an enclosed case with A/C, and heat, and all those other niceties.
I suppose it's a personal matter of value at that point.
Ok, now I know you're from slashdot then... heheh :)
You had me worried there...
... she?
This is SLASHDOT!! You can't APOLOGIZE! :)
No... you can get your license when you're earning as much as anyone else with a PI license... which you likely already are.
No, because computers are much more likely to be involved in crimes, and hold evidence of said crimes.
It's probably rather the incredible memory of the computer and the persistence of information that creates the situation.
I totally agree with you. The solution is not to go to the courts, it's to go to the legislature.
The other thing I just realized, this won't even pass Ration basis review for a lightly protected minority. There is a meaningful and purposeful reason that the legislature passed the law.
Does it suck to be a computer repair technician in Texas now? Yeah, it does. However, since the law applies to all computer repair people, and has a rational reason why one would restrict it.
Like I said before, barring Texans having the right in Texas to pursue any field of work that they wish, and/or specifically to pursue work in the computer repair... this litigation will get beat down so fast, the plaintiffs might get dizzy.
There are no evidence collection rules about trash. The owner of that item has already released ownership and rights to keep it from search and seizure.
Here is a hint for you. If you throw something illegal away, you're an idiot, because cops don't need anyone's permission to collect that evidence anymore.
I think the biggest issue here, is that police and other criminology people are concerned that if a computer tech stumbles across illegal information on a computer, that since they are not a licensed private investigator, the evidence cannot in any way be used. Even if say, it's for a child-pornography case. "Your evidence was siezed improperly, sorry, but it's excluded, next time do things the right way!"
I guess that we should also make anyone who develops photos get a PI license as well. That's a great way to boost salaries at Walmart.
Interesting idea... it's still up to the state to decide so. If the legislature feels that its likely enough that a photo development person will have to deal with collecting evidence, then yeah, they could require a PI license.
And honestly, no one can complain... there's no right to work in any field at all.
We require licenses of many different professions, doctors, medical professionals, accountants even. Sorry, but unfortunately, saying "I have plenty of happy customers that are willing to have me repair their computers" doesn't justify this anymore than a doctor practicing medicine without a license can say "but they're totally accepting of my care, even though I'm unlicensed."
Yes, but we don't require accountants to have medical licenses or doctors to be bar certified.
That's what requiring PC techs to have PI certifications is equivalent to.
No, you've conflated the issue here with certifications and licenses that are not valid analogies.
This is not asking PC repair people to get a license entirely outside of their field. The point is that if a PC repair person does any form of "investigation" on a computer, then they must be PI license. Technically, if you don't do any investigation at all, you don't need a PI license.
The issue here is protecting the consumer and law groups against improper evidence collection during an investigation by someone who is not a police officer.
Doctors require a license as a way for laymen to distinguish between a quack who might kill you and someone learned who might kill you.
Structural engineers need a license so you can have a reasonable expectation that what they design wont fall down on people.
It isn't unusual to have to have a license to work in a particular field. What is unusual is to be required to have a license for a field relatively unrelated. It's rediculous to require structural engineers to get a medical license just because they build hospitals.
Yes, what you describe is ridiculous. However, a structural engineer can't architect a building. That's much closer to what we're talking about.
In any case, in some states, individuals installing cable, and security systems are required to have a Journeyman's License in order to do what is called "low-voltage" electric work. Other states? No requirement at all.
The whole thing about a PI license, is that businesses can enforce some laws. Just the government wants to make sure that they understand evidentiary requirements, and proper handling so that they don't contaminate the evidence.
With a PI license, they can say, "we found child porn on his computer, and here is the chain of possession, etc." If they planted the evidence then they're subject to significantly harsher penalties, because they're license, and cannot argue that they were unaware of the rules regarding evidence collection.
A garbage man doesn't need a PI license, as what he is always dealing with is disposed-of materials, the person has already given up all rights regarding that item.
It's perfectly legal for police to take any evidence at all that is located in trash. It's a common thing in some TV shows (kind of over-using the issue, but it's still a valid point). Have a person drink from a cup, then convince them to leave it there. Say, with a paper cup. Congratulations, they just trashed it, and you can legally obtain it no matter what.
I don't think any of those cases really require a PI license. Repairing a computer is much more likely to produce evidence against someone.
Being a witness doesn't need a PI license... collecting EVIDENCE that can be used in court does.