? I hope you never handle an AR15 platform weapon (M16, M4, etc.) if you continue to make that assumption. As an M4 owner I'll tell you for certain that you can keep a round chambered with the magazine out. In fact, I can't think of a semi-automatic firearm that doesn't allow for a round to remain chambered without the magazine. The only quasi-exception to this is that some pistols have been designed to not fire such a round until a magazine is inserted, but it can certainly be chambered, and even these pistols are not a majority (afaik).
The standard unloading procedure for a semi-automatic weapon such as the M16 is to first remove the magazine and THEN rack the action to extract the chambered round.
As long as they get very close to the speed of light, relativistic length contraction/time dilation will enable them to reach here within a reasonable amount of time in their reference frame.
Not the same. These pillars most certainly don't exist, even by quantum standards, just the light coming from them exists.
"Edison was an asshole."
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror...and they wouldn't shut up.
As a research assistant in an optics lab, I can't help but think that there might be some academic value to the wicked lasers products. Some claim to be pretty powerful at a very low price point (compared to lab lasers which can be a real fortune). But, the name and marketing alone makes me think that these guys have got to be putting a HUGE markup on these lasers. Which means that they likely extremely poor quality with regards to many specifications.
THIS IS EXACTLY HOW I FEEL. Down even to the still running a Droid 1. This post could remain unchanged with my name on it.
...I know they say go buy a waterproof camera...but I can see this challenge leading to a lot of broken cameras and equipment due to the above type of urge.
(Let me begin by saying I have never done any drug besides prescribed medication or the consumption of alcohol, so I have no agenda.)
I agree with this to a certain extent. It's a bit ridiculous that there is a list of plants that are illegal to grown and consume. Or wait...its only illegal to consume certain *parts* of the plant...If you try to think about it too philosophically it very quickly becomes ridiculous.
One of the few things making drugs illegal does is make more red tape that can be "enforced". It doesn't prevent some sort of societal catastrophe. If anything I think it encourages it, because the reason people steal and kill over drugs seems to almost always be because they are hard/dangerous to get and keep *since* they are illegal!
Now, at the same time, it's not farfetched to believe the government should have some sort of protective role for the sake of the people. But I think there is a much better way to go about this. I think an example of a better plan in the right direction would be to make physically addictive chemicals prescription only [en.wikipedia.org] . They could maintain the "controlled substances list" in its current form, but no drug would be explicitly 100% illegal, and only drugs that showed strong evidence of a physical dependency side effect could be put on the list.
As an example, this would be a much better solution to the cigarette problem than just raising taxes. People are physically addicted to the nicotine! So all taxing does is profit off of that! It's just as bad as the tobacco companies. At the same time making cigarettes illegal is ridiculous. So, just make nicotine illegal without a prescription. Those that need to get off an addiction can be prescribed by a physician. Others can then enjoy smoking if they want to without be sold a product that has a chemically addictive component to trap them into a change of lifestyle.
If people *really really* want to get a hold of some addictive drug, there will be a "legal" way, but it would require a lot of effort on their part and they would obviously have to come to terms with the fact that the substance is explicitly physically addictive before getting a hold of it. This means there will still be heroin addicts out there. But, I don't think it would be nearly as bad as now. Moreover, I don't think there would still be as huge of a criminal subculture associated with drugs.
It's by no means a perfect solution, and I'm no expert on any of this. But the point is that its arguably a somewhat better solution, and if an average non-drug using person can come up with it then people whose job it is to do these things ought to be able to come up with better ideas. The reason they don't, I think, is because of a few things such as strong precedents and the large amount of jobs/money/departments/resources dedicated to upkeeping this "enforcement". It has become an end-in-itself.
I agree with this to a certain extent. It's a bit ridiculous that there is a list of plants that are illegal to grown and consume. Or wait...its only illegal to consume certain *parts* of the plant...If you try to think about it too philosophically it very quickly becomes ridiculous.
One of the few things making drugs illegal does is make more red tape that can be "enforced". It doesn't prevent some sort of societal catastrophe. If anything I think it encourages it, because the reason people steal and kill over drugs seems to almost always be because they are hard/dangerous to get and keep *since* they are illegal!
Now, at the same time, it's not farfetched to believe the government should have some sort of protective role for the sake of the people. But I think there is a much better way to go about this. I think an example of a better plan in the right direction would be to make physically addictive chemicals prescription only [en.wikipedia.org] . They could maintain the "controlled substances list" in its current form, but no drug would be explicitly 100% illegal, and only drugs that showed strong evidence of a physical dependency side effect could be put on the list.
As an example, this would be a much better solution to the cigarette problem than just raising taxes. People are physically addicted to the nicotine! So all taxing does is profit off of that! It's just as bad as the tobacco companies. At the same time making cigarettes illegal is ridiculous. So, just make nicotine illegal without a prescription. Those that need to get off an addiction can be prescribed by a physician. Others can then enjoy smoking if they want to without be sold a product that has a chemically addictive component to trap them into a change of lifestyle.
If people *really really* want to get a hold of some addictive drug, there will be a "legal" way, but it would require a lot of effort on their part and they would obviously have to come to terms with the fact that the substance is explicitly physically addictive before getting a hold of it. This means there will still be heroin addicts out there. But, I don't think it would be nearly as bad as now. Moreover, I don't think there would still be as huge of a criminal subculture associated with drugs.
It's by no means a perfect solution, and I'm no expert on any of this. But the point is that its arguably a somewhat better solution, and if an average non-drug using person can come up with it then people whose job it is to do these things ought to be able to come up with better ideas. The reason they don't, I think, is because of a few things such as strong precedents and the large amount of jobs/money/departments/resources dedicated to upkeeping this "enforcement". It has become an end-in-itself.
Yea but the point is that at THIS point these things have already pervaded the entire smartphone universe and have been there for a pretty long time. If Apple was really concerned about intellectual property, I would have said power to them if they were suing Google for all of these things when Android was first released. Instead, they waited until these phones became extremely common place and became a staple of millions of users lives. Then they decided to start picking out each manufacturer one by one...to sue over software issues! Issues that are basically unanimous amongst Android!
It has nothing to do with intellectual property, otherwise they'd be suing the big dog directly for things like swiping to unlock and such. But that's not what they are doing. They are setting up suits in a strategy that is clearly concerned with one thing only, making money off of these companies. They let them get big, that way it'd be worth more when they finally stopped and said "oh yea, that stuff you've been selling? It's been ours for years." And they are going after individual manufacturers so they can essential get paid for the same claims numerous times, instead of just hitting Google and being done with it.
It has nothing to do with intellectual property, otherwise they'd be suing the big dog directly for things like swiping to unlock and such. But that's not what they are doing. They are setting up suits in a strategy that is clearly concerned with one thing only, making money off of these companies. They let them get big, that way it'd be worth more when they finally stopped and said "oh yea, that stuff you've been selling? It's been ours for years." And they are going after individual manufacturers so they can essential get paid for the same claims numerous times, instead of just hitting Google and being done with it.
The article misses the most important point...it wrings the towel out! And then flicks it out flat too! That was borderline spooky to watch.
Anyone have any info as to whether or not it was a taught behavior?
Anyone have any info as to whether or not it was a taught behavior?
It's not a question of the film reacting. The image has already been developed on the film. However, the right question to ask is how transparent the developed film (both dark and clear areas) are to UV light. How the film looks in the visible spectrum doesn't say anything about how it looks in the UV spectrum.
This would be the first thing to figure out. Next would probably involve an imaging apparatus, i.e. a convex lens system.
This would be the first thing to figure out. Next would probably involve an imaging apparatus, i.e. a convex lens system.
At the sake of reviving a way old thread, I really have to note here that you seem to be the one with the misunderstanding, not jetRink. Quantum mechanics does not say that we can't have complete knowledge of the state of a particle (at least not in the way you are implying, it does in a much more subtle way and only in certain circumstances). It doesn't claim that it's just our knowledge of position vs momentum that is uncertain. It claims to fully describe the state of the system, and that particles do not even have exact positions and momenta. The concept that they really do and that it is our knowledge that is lacking is a claim that quantum mechanics is incomplete and is a proposition for a so called hidden variables theory. There are many theorems that put extreme restrictions on what such theories can be like if they are to predict the same outcomes we see in the lab. You'll find that creating a hidden variables theory that obeys all of these restrictions takes away almost all of the appealing aspects of hidden variables in the first place.
The measurement postulate of quantum mechanics is 100% random. That said, all of the other rules of quantum mechanics are deterministic, and in principle it should be possible to apply these other rules to measurement devices and thus come up with a deterministic theory. But, something happens along the way from quantum to classical that complicates this, because the behavior we see in the lab does not agree with the deterministic evolution concept (which would imply superpositions and entanglement all the way through to the "people" level). This has been the biggest open issue in QM since its inception. The best model we have so far has to resort to physical randomness caused by measurements. So according to conventional traditional QM, which includes the measurement postulate, there are fundamentally physically random processes in physics.
That said, even if you throw out the measurement postulate (and thus all experimental predictivity), QM describes a world in which 99% of the time almost none of the terms we are used to using have any meaning at all when being applied to systems we would like to apply them to. So playing the game that way doesn't work towards the kinds of deterministic and knowledge driven arguments people usually want to make.
The measurement postulate of quantum mechanics is 100% random. That said, all of the other rules of quantum mechanics are deterministic, and in principle it should be possible to apply these other rules to measurement devices and thus come up with a deterministic theory. But, something happens along the way from quantum to classical that complicates this, because the behavior we see in the lab does not agree with the deterministic evolution concept (which would imply superpositions and entanglement all the way through to the "people" level). This has been the biggest open issue in QM since its inception. The best model we have so far has to resort to physical randomness caused by measurements. So according to conventional traditional QM, which includes the measurement postulate, there are fundamentally physically random processes in physics.
That said, even if you throw out the measurement postulate (and thus all experimental predictivity), QM describes a world in which 99% of the time almost none of the terms we are used to using have any meaning at all when being applied to systems we would like to apply them to. So playing the game that way doesn't work towards the kinds of deterministic and knowledge driven arguments people usually want to make.
Thank you for the logical response! Not only is the article bogus on the account you mention, but your number (4) is giving them too much credit. All they showed was that photons can't travel faster than light. It's possible other things can. Moreover (although I can't find the original paper), I think all they have shown is that the photons THEY measured weren't going faster than light, which is even weaker and leaves the possibility that faster than light photons could be generated. So in essence, I don't think they proved ANYTHING at all.
Easy trick for organizing:
1) Remove every application from dock except Finder (you can't remove it)
2) Just leave the stuff on the right
3) Download Quicksilver and use that to launch everything, using comma to launch multiple things at the same time
4) only use the dock (or 4 finger swipe) to see what's running, getting to hidden windows, etc.
1) Remove every application from dock except Finder (you can't remove it)
2) Just leave the stuff on the right
3) Download Quicksilver and use that to launch everything, using comma to launch multiple things at the same time
4) only use the dock (or 4 finger swipe) to see what's running, getting to hidden windows, etc.
...so this must make Four Loko the hangover proof drink right? lol
Funny how if you put this up in Afganistan its just a cool tech story, but if it was going up in USA people would be shitting bricks left and right and shouting things like "SOCIALIZMS!!!".
...not better than Quicksilver AND not really free...quite expensive for the features in fact...NEXT
Clearly this is evidence of the Earth's sudden axis shift and the change in the zodiac...
lol
lol
This so should have been on TeeFury.
