Don't dare patronise me. I sincerely doubt they internally work in Kelvins, and I am absolutely certain they do not work in degrees C. The fact is the photons given off by the particles will also have their energies measured in electronvolts. Having to work backwards from the blackbody spectrum constantly would be a major pain in the arse.
Oh, and this is a press release; so it is quite clearly an example of science journalism, even if it is published by a science institution.
If you understood the subject matter, rather than merely pedantry and wiki-linking, you would know that talking about the 'temperature' of a quark-gluon plasma is almost entirely meaningless. As is referring to it as a liquid. What they are working with here is entirely alien to the macroscopic world that we use to define things like temperature and states of matter.
Common sense? You can't apply your meatbrain savanna instincts to cosmic scale problems such as the composition of the universe. To quote Terry Pratchett's grim reaper, "YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A LUCKY SPECIES OF APE THAT IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF CREATION VIA A LANGUAGE THAT EVOLVED IN ORDER TO TELL ONE ANOTHER WHERE THE RIPE FRUIT WAS"
You've not strayed from current physics knowledge here, but your reason for supporting sounds kind of flimsy.
I'm studying physics, and I've no idea how hot that is because in particle accelerators you use electronvolts instead of kelvins to measure particle speed. Science journalism is so bad sometimes that the more actual science you know the more confusing the reports about it are.
I should clarify my comments; when I say 'rights holders' I don't mean the artists themselves, I mean the companies and groups whose core competency is holding and aggressively enforcing rights. Its an important distinction, as artists such as Edwin Collins have found out.
A large amount of money is made in industries that exist purely to charge people for access to something that they likely would have access to anyway if it weren't for the strictures society places on them. Social conservatism and tooth-and-claw capitalism work together here; by depriving you of your basic pleasures and then making a fortune selling them back to you.
The way things are set up right now, you are either a middleman or a complete mug. If you are driven purely by a desire to increase your monetary worth (and society places immense pressures on you to be exactly this way) then you steer as far clear from actually producing something of value as you can.
The laws in question are basically a way of saying 'the music industry controls music. There shall be no music without our say so' whilst appearing to be a justified set of rules to make the industry fair. Even if this were the first example (it really, really is not) then nobody ought to be at all surprised. Few service or hosting providers have the balls to actually look into the matter when a legal-sounding letter arrives; they just err on the side of not being taken to court and comply immediately, which is exactly the kind of environment the content industry has sought to create.
Rather than there being a presumption of innocence for those publishing on the web, and the rights holder having to prove guilt - there is a a presumption of guilt and the publisher has to prove innocence, normally with far fewer legal funds available than the rights holder. There is also no consequence to the service/hosting provider for taking content down.
In a society so thoroughly and openly corrupt, how can this be a surprise? If the entire government and legal system is open to the highest bidder (true in every western nation I can think of) then naturally the intent of all laws will be to keep entrenched elites in place.
Thatcher doesn't even qualify as a principle politician; there is footage of her comparing the laws of monetarism with the laws of gravity; then a few years later an interview where she flatly denies ever having subscribed to monetarism.
I don't blame you for taking your position on Thatcher though; after Winston 'lets kill some fuzzy wuzzies' Churchill, no other PM has had such a deliberately constructed and widespread cult of personality. Irritatingly, even people born after Thatcher was ousted are now parroting the official Tory history of her disastrous reign.
Yep, Thatcher had her principles. And her failed monetarist experiment that gutted our industrial base. And her extra-judicial murders. And being caught flat out lying several times on national TV. And turning government run natural monopolies into private monopolies, ruining our infrastructure. What a brilliant PM.
Woah. I don't have time to go through all of that, but...
1. Rockets and integrated circuits are not a product of the free market; both are a result of a government-driven missile/space program (The US government consumed the majority of ICs for the first couple of years for the Minuteman II program) so your argument fails there.
2. The period you described had top rates of personal income tax between 70 and 90%, bearing in mind top rates of 50% these days are lambasted as socialism. So your knowledge of history seems shaky too
3. China is not an odd case globally. Wherever the neoliberal concept of 'economic freedom' is applied, business enjoys freedom at the cost of individuals (e.g. Coca Cola company murdering union leaders at their bottling plants).
You've started with a conclusion (that markets are great!) and tried to fit evidence to it (getting much of that evidence plain wrong). How is that not idiotic?
You come across as a market fundamentalist by going on about 'small government' like that in the aftermath of one of the biggest market-caused economic disasters of living memory.
If you want a quick summary of why Thatcher was nothing like the cult of personality the Tories built up around her, I suggest a documentary called 'Pandoras Box' by Adam Curtis. One of the episodes deals with her catastrophic economic experiments.
On the one hand, we have the Tories who actually know how to put a country on a sound economic track. They like a light footprint of government, and let people get on with making money and jobs.
OK, I am going to have to stop you there with some reality. The Tories are cut from the same idiotic market fundamentalist cloth you are, sure, but that doesn't translate into smaller government, or economic success. Your neoliberal ideas are unmitigated bullshit.
Take Thatcher for instance: she came to power with a monetarist agenda, which almost immediately crippled the already struggling economy - and this was despite substantial oil revenues coming into the country at the time she took power. The only reason someone so blatantly incompetent was re-elected in 1983 was because she cynically manipulated nationalist sentiment over the Falklands war, and because the left were divided at the time. Much of the rest of her premiership was spent fudging her horrific economic record (lying about the whole monetarist thing, reducing unemployment stats by shifting people onto incapacity who didn't warrant it), ordering extrajudicial killings, and allowing the government budget to increase (which it had to in order to prop up the damaged economy she created. That is the actual economic record of your beloved Tories.
Oh, and trying to equate your economic ideas to those of political freedom is asinine. Business faces fewer regulations in China (hence the lead paint and shit) but that country is clearly less free than anywhere in Western Europe.
Too true. First-past the post, safe seats, and the boundary commission all collude to ensure that nothing substantially changes when an election happens. The entire structure is set up to give all the appearances of democracy with none of the reality of it.
At the risk of a Godwin, that is like saying "Nazi Germany has give up voluntary factory work, all its economy has left is slave labour". If our economic model is doomed without infringement on civil liberties, then change the goddamn model!
I'm an old leftie and a fan of nuclear power, so you can't categorise it like that. However, you are right about extreme reactions. There is Tritium in the groundwater. This is bad, needs to be handled, and isn't in any way shape or form a reason not to use nuclear power.
Why would running liquid through the chip not be able to control the temperature? I'm assuming here there is some way to either build voids into your chip or make them out of some material that can be dissolved afterwards without damaging the chip.
3D chip manufacturing would be interesting. As well as having a possible stepping stone towards universal fabrication, you would also have a great increase in the potential number of connections between processing elements. Connectivity is one of the main divides between silicon and neural tissue, so this may have implications for artificial intelligence. Two singularities for the price of one!
Why combine Europe, but not combine India and China? The political reality in 1600 in Europe was a deeply divided one, nothing like the relatively harmonious block we have today.
Yep, nuclear power is cool - but you had better hope that before you don't run out of old Soviet nukes to burn, either India cracks Thorium or ITER finds some way to keep commerical fusion reactors fed with Tritium. Its no magic bullet.
NASA (and ESA) satellites have been in orbit for decades, so if the current scientific consensus were radically wrong we would've spotted it by now. Furthermore, if geoengineering on any scale is feasible, its not a ready technology. Reducing emissions is required, otherwise we could well end up spending so much energy mitigating the effects of AGW it would've been more economical to reduce the emissions.
How about this smart guy:
Let's wait until China quits distorting its markets in such a way that's going to result in a bubble an order of magnitude worse than the one that just burst.
The notion that there is such a strong equivalence between governments "distorting markets" and economic bubbles isn't taken seriously outside libertarian circle-jerks. You do know that, right?
Let's wait until India can pull the other 2/3 (yes, over 650 million) of their people out of subsistence farming.
Trash and bash all you like, but open societies are superior, and even the US is ahead of them in that ball game. The Chinese can only steal so much technology, and the Indians can only ride their one-trick pony so far.
Perhaps you missed the Slashdot article about the expansion of basic research in China? And the notion that India is a one trick pony is so bizarre and divorced from reality I don't know how to address it. To be honest, I think you are simply being racist here.
Between crop failures, gender imbalances, and regional tensions, they'll be lucky to be alive in twenty years. All it takes is one Pakistani or Russian nuke to take care of that, and with the run on natural resources in their respective regions don't think it won't happen. Hell, the West should encourage it!
What the hell is that? Did you read that in Guns n' Ammo or something? Its not an argument at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't dare patronise me. I sincerely doubt they internally work in Kelvins, and I am absolutely certain they do not work in degrees C. The fact is the photons given off by the particles will also have their energies measured in electronvolts. Having to work backwards from the blackbody spectrum constantly would be a major pain in the arse.
Oh, and this is a press release; so it is quite clearly an example of science journalism, even if it is published by a science institution.
If you understood the subject matter, rather than merely pedantry and wiki-linking, you would know that talking about the 'temperature' of a quark-gluon plasma is almost entirely meaningless. As is referring to it as a liquid. What they are working with here is entirely alien to the macroscopic world that we use to define things like temperature and states of matter.
Common sense? You can't apply your meatbrain savanna instincts to cosmic scale problems such as the composition of the universe. To quote Terry Pratchett's grim reaper, "YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A LUCKY SPECIES OF APE THAT IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF CREATION VIA A LANGUAGE THAT EVOLVED IN ORDER TO TELL ONE ANOTHER WHERE THE RIPE FRUIT WAS"
You've not strayed from current physics knowledge here, but your reason for supporting sounds kind of flimsy.
I'm studying physics, and I've no idea how hot that is because in particle accelerators you use electronvolts instead of kelvins to measure particle speed. Science journalism is so bad sometimes that the more actual science you know the more confusing the reports about it are.
I should clarify my comments; when I say 'rights holders' I don't mean the artists themselves, I mean the companies and groups whose core competency is holding and aggressively enforcing rights. Its an important distinction, as artists such as Edwin Collins have found out.
And if its your personal blog? Who has the time, inclination, money and/or knowledge to really challenge a large content corporation?
What is left is a gatekeeper economy.
A large amount of money is made in industries that exist purely to charge people for access to something that they likely would have access to anyway if it weren't for the strictures society places on them. Social conservatism and tooth-and-claw capitalism work together here; by depriving you of your basic pleasures and then making a fortune selling them back to you.
The way things are set up right now, you are either a middleman or a complete mug. If you are driven purely by a desire to increase your monetary worth (and society places immense pressures on you to be exactly this way) then you steer as far clear from actually producing something of value as you can.
The laws in question are basically a way of saying 'the music industry controls music. There shall be no music without our say so' whilst appearing to be a justified set of rules to make the industry fair. Even if this were the first example (it really, really is not) then nobody ought to be at all surprised. Few service or hosting providers have the balls to actually look into the matter when a legal-sounding letter arrives; they just err on the side of not being taken to court and comply immediately, which is exactly the kind of environment the content industry has sought to create.
Rather than there being a presumption of innocence for those publishing on the web, and the rights holder having to prove guilt - there is a a presumption of guilt and the publisher has to prove innocence, normally with far fewer legal funds available than the rights holder. There is also no consequence to the service/hosting provider for taking content down.
In a society so thoroughly and openly corrupt, how can this be a surprise? If the entire government and legal system is open to the highest bidder (true in every western nation I can think of) then naturally the intent of all laws will be to keep entrenched elites in place.
Thatcher doesn't even qualify as a principle politician; there is footage of her comparing the laws of monetarism with the laws of gravity; then a few years later an interview where she flatly denies ever having subscribed to monetarism.
I don't blame you for taking your position on Thatcher though; after Winston 'lets kill some fuzzy wuzzies' Churchill, no other PM has had such a deliberately constructed and widespread cult of personality. Irritatingly, even people born after Thatcher was ousted are now parroting the official Tory history of her disastrous reign.
Yep, Thatcher had her principles. And her failed monetarist experiment that gutted our industrial base. And her extra-judicial murders. And being caught flat out lying several times on national TV. And turning government run natural monopolies into private monopolies, ruining our infrastructure. What a brilliant PM.
And it was the other way around for spaceflight. Therefore the analogy is bullshit.
Woah. I don't have time to go through all of that, but...
1. Rockets and integrated circuits are not a product of the free market; both are a result of a government-driven missile/space program (The US government consumed the majority of ICs for the first couple of years for the Minuteman II program) so your argument fails there.
2. The period you described had top rates of personal income tax between 70 and 90%, bearing in mind top rates of 50% these days are lambasted as socialism. So your knowledge of history seems shaky too
3. China is not an odd case globally. Wherever the neoliberal concept of 'economic freedom' is applied, business enjoys freedom at the cost of individuals (e.g. Coca Cola company murdering union leaders at their bottling plants).
You've started with a conclusion (that markets are great!) and tried to fit evidence to it (getting much of that evidence plain wrong). How is that not idiotic?
You come across as a market fundamentalist by going on about 'small government' like that in the aftermath of one of the biggest market-caused economic disasters of living memory.
If you want a quick summary of why Thatcher was nothing like the cult of personality the Tories built up around her, I suggest a documentary called 'Pandoras Box' by Adam Curtis. One of the episodes deals with her catastrophic economic experiments.
OK, I am going to have to stop you there with some reality. The Tories are cut from the same idiotic market fundamentalist cloth you are, sure, but that doesn't translate into smaller government, or economic success. Your neoliberal ideas are unmitigated bullshit.
Take Thatcher for instance: she came to power with a monetarist agenda, which almost immediately crippled the already struggling economy - and this was despite substantial oil revenues coming into the country at the time she took power. The only reason someone so blatantly incompetent was re-elected in 1983 was because she cynically manipulated nationalist sentiment over the Falklands war, and because the left were divided at the time. Much of the rest of her premiership was spent fudging her horrific economic record (lying about the whole monetarist thing, reducing unemployment stats by shifting people onto incapacity who didn't warrant it), ordering extrajudicial killings, and allowing the government budget to increase (which it had to in order to prop up the damaged economy she created. That is the actual economic record of your beloved Tories.
Oh, and trying to equate your economic ideas to those of political freedom is asinine. Business faces fewer regulations in China (hence the lead paint and shit) but that country is clearly less free than anywhere in Western Europe.
Too true. First-past the post, safe seats, and the boundary commission all collude to ensure that nothing substantially changes when an election happens. The entire structure is set up to give all the appearances of democracy with none of the reality of it.
The UK economy is dominated by the financial sector - which sells 'products' with a similarly shaky value as the so-called 'creative' industry.
At the risk of a Godwin, that is like saying "Nazi Germany has give up voluntary factory work, all its economy has left is slave labour". If our economic model is doomed without infringement on civil liberties, then change the goddamn model!
I'm an old leftie and a fan of nuclear power, so you can't categorise it like that. However, you are right about extreme reactions. There is Tritium in the groundwater. This is bad, needs to be handled, and isn't in any way shape or form a reason not to use nuclear power.
Why would running liquid through the chip not be able to control the temperature? I'm assuming here there is some way to either build voids into your chip or make them out of some material that can be dissolved afterwards without damaging the chip.
3D chip manufacturing would be interesting. As well as having a possible stepping stone towards universal fabrication, you would also have a great increase in the potential number of connections between processing elements. Connectivity is one of the main divides between silicon and neural tissue, so this may have implications for artificial intelligence. Two singularities for the price of one!
Yep. Its all very well working from the Stasis operating manual, but they didn't have to contend with modern information technology...
These guys do not have 'real hardware' - they have some photos of metal tubes. This hardly constitutes a rocket program.
Why combine Europe, but not combine India and China? The political reality in 1600 in Europe was a deeply divided one, nothing like the relatively harmonious block we have today.
A typo, albeit an ironic one considering current economic fortunes.
Sorry, I misunderstood you.
Yep, nuclear power is cool - but you had better hope that before you don't run out of old Soviet nukes to burn, either India cracks Thorium or ITER finds some way to keep commerical fusion reactors fed with Tritium. Its no magic bullet.
NASA (and ESA) satellites have been in orbit for decades, so if the current scientific consensus were radically wrong we would've spotted it by now. Furthermore, if geoengineering on any scale is feasible, its not a ready technology. Reducing emissions is required, otherwise we could well end up spending so much energy mitigating the effects of AGW it would've been more economical to reduce the emissions.
The notion that there is such a strong equivalence between governments "distorting markets" and economic bubbles isn't taken seriously outside libertarian circle-jerks. You do know that, right?
Grinding poverty never seemed to hold the US back... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7106726.stm
Perhaps you missed the Slashdot article about the expansion of basic research in China? And the notion that India is a one trick pony is so bizarre and divorced from reality I don't know how to address it. To be honest, I think you are simply being racist here.
What the hell is that? Did you read that in Guns n' Ammo or something? Its not an argument at all.