Okay, I started writing a very long post discussing the many fallacies in this link but I stopped when I realized how silly I was being. This post is beyond reproach in that it seems to be beyond anything what could call coherent thought. I mean, sure the author made complete sentences and some of them even avoid including a fallacy or a phrase that is completely undefined, but they fail to create a single meaningful argument for.. anything, really.
Yeah, "not even wrong" is nicely applicable here. Wash your brain out with the work of people who know what they are talking about. Shameless self-link to a website I maintain. It's really nifty and on topic, though
On a related note: Quantum physics killed my alien wombat baby and you are all witnesses!
As an undergrad in the process of applying to graduate schools for the very purpose of researching the quantum computation and quantum information field, the comments in these posts make me giddy.
The latest Scientific American had a nice little piece about a new method of creating quantum dots that "cut the costs by 80 percent". The replaced the inordinately expensive octadene used to create them with the much less expensive Dowtherm A and Therminol 66.
The amount processed is still small (only 20 milligrams per batch so far) but this is an exciting time for both experimentalists, theorists and every computer geek dreaming of the possibilities of entagled systems inside their boxes.
That first link is a great introduction to the subject, though. Nice find, Chyren. Sorry for crapping on this post and commenting 3 times in a row. I'm an ass, sometimes.
Oh, and he writes that faster than light communication is possible which violates both quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity, separately and together.
Uh.. that paper is written by the guy behind a certain site that, well, its crank-tastic (NSFW).
I can't judge his work right now, but he seems to think that some Chinese kids can teleport, that the US and Israeli governments created 9/11, and he wrote a paper claiming to have found a violation of the "no cloning" rule (if I read his work correctly). If true, he should be given a Nobel, but this is extremely unlikely.
Apparently, I act 25 but I am actually 21. I find the statistics of the answers intriguing. The younger folk tend to get 'bumped up' a 3-8 years while the older folk get knocked down by a few decades. Hmm.. is it something about the population here at MoFi, or something odd about the test? Interesting..
yentruoc: I cant believe I forgot that part of the case. Your scenario would definitely fit even if there was minimal damage and even lubricated sex would cause damage. Sigh.. And without actually seeing the trial through we are all are left with no evidence here in the article (it seems) to decide between the two possible scenarios (yours and the "completely consensual"). Damn you, judicial system. You and your fact finding. *shakes fist*
panopticon: My understanding is that if he has a penis that is in the "top 5%" (quite a few standard deviations to left of a Gaussian) in size, that he would done much more damage to the woman. Whether the man does have such a large penis and whether it is large enough that nonconsenual sex would have done so much more damage because of it is what the judge has to weigh.
The defendants seems to have a decent case, but one that could be attacked, and attacked well by a skilled prosecutor. (Note: IANAL, but I like pretending to be one online.) The defendant basically as to say that say that first the woman would not be "naturally lubricated" but this is obviously false. The natural reaction is for some lubrication to occur even under nonconsenual stress. (In fact, some raped women have a small part of their brain that gives them a pleasure response. This, of course, is not saying that these woman "want it", quite the opposite: They do not want it but feel even more guilty because some part of their brain reacted they way it is supposed to do when they are penetrated. It is an unfortunate left over stimulus that makes women feel even worse about a terrible situation.)
Anyway, the prosecutor could claim a) not much damage would be done (I find this suspect because.. well.. nevermind about that, but it depends on the anatomy of both parties) and b) that this natural lubrication could reduce the damage caused. The defendant would, of course, respond that even with naturally occurring lubrication that he would have done much more damage.
The judge is in quite the pinch. I can only hope that what is decided is what happened.
Zealot: You're totally right about New Scientist. I gave up using them as a source for information many, many moons ago.
From the bottom of the link:
"This stuff, as Wolfgang Pauli would say, is not even wrong," he says. But physicist Paul Wesson of Stanford University in California says Rueda and Haisch's unorthodox approach shows promise, though he adds that the theory needs to be backed up by experimental evidence. "If Haisch [and Rueda] could come up with a concrete prediction, then that would make people sit up and take notice," he says. "We're all looking for something we can measure."
(my emphasis)
That's pretty much my take on it. Give me something you predict, and let's run the test. I'll have to pop off and read the paper to say more about its veracity. Don't expect a thoroughly enlightened response after I read it. PRL can kick the ass of most Ph.D's, much less a senior undergradute.
The Higgs boson (a.k.a. "the god particle") is a particle that is similar but not quite to gravity what electrons are to electricity. tellurian's link is very good, and there are other "one page explanations" that are great reads as well. Feel free to lambast me for confusing you with the "similar but not quite" pop science explanation.
Now, The reason we have not proven the existence of it is because our particle accelerators are 2GeV (2*10^9 electron-volts) lower than what we would need to, theoretically (finally, a worthwhile use of that word!), observe it. The problem is that is the Higgs boson's mass is about "thousand-billion-billion-billionth (10 -30) the mass of an electron". So, it's a bit hard to "see." Everyone's pretty anxious right now because we're getting to the upper bounds of the predicted energies needed to observe it. We've reached up to ~115GeV and, fortunately, some new accelerators that are being built right now will be able to blow away those numbers away.
</physics geek>
Ah, but I think the Fold n' Drop is not nearly as terrible as the clickless interface. Being able to "push away" folders to close them is a nice, distincy verb-noun pair (like, "close the window" or "click the icon") unlike the click-less interface which doesn't really seem to have anything like that. Everything is "wave the mouse over" with no separation between opening, closing and moving the mouse across the screen.
I really don't know which I'm going to have more fun at, the conference or the rest of the city. This conf. is on exactly the field I want to research. So, yeah, I'm going to be working the social network hard. :D
If you just hit enter while Nick's link is in your address bar, blogspot thinks that you are not being hotlinked from another site. Cute post.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
In "Play 20 Questions with an AI"
Beat it with "force". I rock.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
In "Can quantum physics explain the paranormal?"
Okay, I started writing a very long post discussing the many fallacies in this link but I stopped when I realized how silly I was being. This post is beyond reproach in that it seems to be beyond anything what could call coherent thought. I mean, sure the author made complete sentences and some of them even avoid including a fallacy or a phrase that is completely undefined, but they fail to create a single meaningful argument for.. anything, really. Yeah, "not even wrong" is nicely applicable here. Wash your brain out with the work of people who know what they are talking about. Shameless self-link to a website I maintain. It's really nifty and on topic, though On a related note: Quantum physics killed my alien wombat baby and you are all witnesses!
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
In "Live simple"
drjimmy11: I was thinking the same thing.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
In "Quantum bubbles are the key"
As an undergrad in the process of applying to graduate schools for the very purpose of researching the quantum computation and quantum information field, the comments in these posts make me giddy. The latest Scientific American had a nice little piece about a new method of creating quantum dots that "cut the costs by 80 percent". The replaced the inordinately expensive octadene used to create them with the much less expensive Dowtherm A and Therminol 66. The amount processed is still small (only 20 milligrams per batch so far) but this is an exciting time for both experimentalists, theorists and every computer geek dreaming of the possibilities of entagled systems inside their boxes.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
In "Quantum Entanglement"
That first link is a great introduction to the subject, though. Nice find, Chyren. Sorry for crapping on this post and commenting 3 times in a row. I'm an ass, sometimes.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
Oh, and he writes that faster than light communication is possible which violates both quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity, separately and together.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
Uh.. that paper is written by the guy behind a certain site that, well, its crank-tastic (NSFW). I can't judge his work right now, but he seems to think that some Chinese kids can teleport, that the US and Israeli governments created 9/11, and he wrote a paper claiming to have found a violation of the "no cloning" rule (if I read his work correctly). If true, he should be given a Nobel, but this is extremely unlikely.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
In "What age do you act?"
Bah, maybe I'm wrong. But the test does seem to try and peg everyone here in their late twenties/early thirties.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
Apparently, I act 25 but I am actually 21. I find the statistics of the answers intriguing. The younger folk tend to get 'bumped up' a 3-8 years while the older folk get knocked down by a few decades. Hmm.. is it something about the population here at MoFi, or something odd about the test? Interesting..
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
In "Juvie Warden resigns because of "personal problems"."
I'm totally lost in my own librarian fantasy now. Great, there goes my night of planned productiviy.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
In "Penis size used as defence in trial"
yentruoc: I cant believe I forgot that part of the case. Your scenario would definitely fit even if there was minimal damage and even lubricated sex would cause damage. Sigh.. And without actually seeing the trial through we are all are left with no evidence here in the article (it seems) to decide between the two possible scenarios (yours and the "completely consensual"). Damn you, judicial system. You and your fact finding. *shakes fist*
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
panopticon: My understanding is that if he has a penis that is in the "top 5%" (quite a few standard deviations to left of a Gaussian) in size, that he would done much more damage to the woman. Whether the man does have such a large penis and whether it is large enough that nonconsenual sex would have done so much more damage because of it is what the judge has to weigh. The defendants seems to have a decent case, but one that could be attacked, and attacked well by a skilled prosecutor. (Note: IANAL, but I like pretending to be one online.) The defendant basically as to say that say that first the woman would not be "naturally lubricated" but this is obviously false. The natural reaction is for some lubrication to occur even under nonconsenual stress. (In fact, some raped women have a small part of their brain that gives them a pleasure response. This, of course, is not saying that these woman "want it", quite the opposite: They do not want it but feel even more guilty because some part of their brain reacted they way it is supposed to do when they are penetrated. It is an unfortunate left over stimulus that makes women feel even worse about a terrible situation.) Anyway, the prosecutor could claim a) not much damage would be done (I find this suspect because.. well.. nevermind about that, but it depends on the anatomy of both parties) and b) that this natural lubrication could reduce the damage caused. The defendant would, of course, respond that even with naturally occurring lubrication that he would have done much more damage. The judge is in quite the pinch. I can only hope that what is decided is what happened.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
In "We'll all live online -"
Initial impressions: I want to see nedroid's code.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
In "The origin of mass"
Zealot: You're totally right about New Scientist. I gave up using them as a source for information many, many moons ago. From the bottom of the link:
(my emphasis) That's pretty much my take on it. Give me something you predict, and let's run the test. I'll have to pop off and read the paper to say more about its veracity. Don't expect a thoroughly enlightened response after I read it. PRL can kick the ass of most Ph.D's, much less a senior undergradute.posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
The Higgs boson (a.k.a. "the god particle") is a particle that is similar but not quite to gravity what electrons are to electricity. tellurian's link is very good, and there are other "one page explanations" that are great reads as well. Feel free to lambast me for confusing you with the "similar but not quite" pop science explanation. Now, The reason we have not proven the existence of it is because our particle accelerators are 2GeV (2*10^9 electron-volts) lower than what we would need to, theoretically (finally, a worthwhile use of that word!), observe it. The problem is that is the Higgs boson's mass is about "thousand-billion-billion-billionth (10 -30) the mass of an electron". So, it's a bit hard to "see." Everyone's pretty anxious right now because we're getting to the upper bounds of the predicted energies needed to observe it. We've reached up to ~115GeV and, fortunately, some new accelerators that are being built right now will be able to blow away those numbers away. </physics geek>
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
In "That New, Old Interface"
Ah, but I think the Fold n' Drop is not nearly as terrible as the clickless interface. Being able to "push away" folders to close them is a nice, distincy verb-noun pair (like, "close the window" or "click the icon") unlike the click-less interface which doesn't really seem to have anything like that. Everything is "wave the mouse over" with no separation between opening, closing and moving the mouse across the screen.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
In "Curious George, Undergrad Edition:"
If you people only knew how much of a smiley addict I truly was.
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
I really don't know which I'm going to have more fun at, the conference or the rest of the city. This conf. is on exactly the field I want to research. So, yeah, I'm going to be working the social network hard. :D
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
I'll have to add those to my list in case I run into some interesting vegheads. Thanks, fish tick!
posted by jmhodges 18 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)