Neutrinos Moved Faster Than Speed of Light?
OPERA Neutrino Experiment
This is the thing I find so fascinating about science. As Tim Minchin put it,
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed". This discovery could one
day change our understanding of the universe and the way in which things work.
Doesn't mean previous scientists were wrong; all science is build on the
foundation of others work. That's not arrogance, it's a thirst for knowledge.
Read the article BBC/Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern
<>
The results are observed within a 'confidence interval'. That means there're
possible errors arising from sample size, measurement artifacts etc. All the
scientists are saying is that their expts. are significant within a certain
accuracy, and they want an independent review of their results. If one can prove
mathematically that a speed above light exists, then you're on to something.
Read the article BBC/Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern
<>
Having run various experiments on many systems during my engineering career I
can appreciate the position the scientists at CERN are in. They ran an
experiment, got odd results. So they recalibrated everything, still got weird
results, upgraded parts for accuracy, still got weird results. So now they're
doing what I'd do, getting someone else to cross check what they've done. All
very professional
Read the article BBC/Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern
I tend to lean in favour of one of Relativity's most simple ideas, in that nothing can exceed the speed of light.
To do so violates the idea of anything with mass (even neutrinos) accelerated to close the speed of light requiring an insane amount of energy to do so. To equal it, infinite. Then you have the build up of kinetic energy in anything with measurable mass when accelerated to the speed of light, no matter how small, becoming infinite. The object's mass becomes infinite. All of which point towards physical impossibilities.
I feel error has crept into these experiments because the results kinda fly in the face of many rigid and tested theories. I recall reading recently about theoretical particles with truly zero mass (that could hypothetically be accelerated to the speed of light), but these were purely theoretical and measuring/observing them if they did exist posed all sorts of challenges.
Does this mean current theories concerning optics and relativity cannot be proven wrong or expanded upon? Of course not, but a lot of basic 'rules' suggest the claims these folks are making will require some serious evidence and re-testing. And given the tiny margin they are claiming, error cannot be ruled out
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Neutrino experiment sees them apparently moving faster than light
<>
If this is true consequences are mind boggling. If in fact neutrinos can travel faster than light, it doesn't matter that it's "only" 0,00002 % faster (or whatever) as far as we know (and we may know less that we thought), it should be possible to reach any speed.
As I understand for a particle with mass to reach the speed of light you need more and more energy, as more energy gets converted to mass reaching a point where you would need infinite energy. Massless particles can only travel at the speed of light (photons and other force carriers). But particles moving faster than light have no barrier that we're aware of. Instantaneous communications are possible; just to mention something.
The consequences are just too far reaching, so let's be cautious and wait for some other team to replicate the experiment and see what it all brings us. Relativity has been tested over and over, in increasingly finer and subtler details, and we have never seen hints of new physics. A discovery as exceptional as this requires also exceptional, beyond reasonable doubt, and replicable tests
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Neutrino experiment sees them apparently moving faster than light
Google's Business Practices Under Scrutiny
It's hard to fault Google for including their own results (on their own search engine) above other results. It's the kind of behavior that, if they weren't Google, wouldn't even be an issue. But, as with Microsoft, the key is what position you hold in the market; or, boiled down, the fact that (like or or not) the rules are different for David than Goliath.
Google, like any other company, strives for market dominance. But they need to understand that as they (arguably) achieve that dominance, the kinds of tactics they're allowed to use to maintain it change.
Things like telling Yelp that the only way to get them to stop scraping their results (while presumably removing any references to Yelp) was to be removed from Google altogether (which is about a step removed from not even existing on the internet, nowadays)...yeah, that's a bit shady. Made more so by the previous acquisition attempt.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/"Google rigs its results," say critics at Senate antitrust hearing
<>
Did I wake up in some alternate universe where freedom of speech no longer exists and a company doesn't have the right to put what it wants on their own website?
I don't see what the big deal is if Google promotes their own stuff on their own website.
Do they claim to be a completely neutral service?
When did Google become a public service? Is it funded by tax dollars?
Where's the people screaming that Microsoft promotes their company more than any other on microsoft.com?
Why isn't anyone complaining that when they search on oracle.com that they only see oracle related results?
Are they being 'evil' too?
This is just absolutely absurd.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/"Google rigs its results," say critics at Senate antitrust hearing
<>
Yeah, comparisons to Microsoft are a bit over-the-top; yes, there's some question as to whether Google is abusing their market dominance in one product to stifle competition in other markets and services, but that's about where the similarities end. Microsoft's actions were always much more clearly willful and malicious.
For instance, with Yelp. Scraping web sites is what Google does, so that they'd scrape Yelp and offer the results to users is unsurprising. Also, that it would require additional engineering effort to prevent this behavior while still presenting Yelp results elsewhere is at least plausible...and probably true. This, at least, would seem to be an example of a passive practice that is stifling competition.
Whereas the actions that Microsoft took were active, and there was a pretty substantial paper trail as to the intent.
I disagree, but a little sunlight via Senate hearings etc might be instructive.
Exactly. Because even if they aren't currently evil, they appear to be on an evil-ward trajectory.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/"Google rigs its results," say critics at Senate antitrust hearing
<>
Google has some great services that I rely on every day, but I have no problem with their feet being held to the fire, especially given their desire to extend their tendrils into every single thing we do on the Internet. They'd love for everyone to use their email service, their web browser, their maps, their online photo service, their video service, their ebook store, their smartphone platform, their social network, their travel service, their scripting language, hell, even their DNS servers. Oh yeah, and search. There's a ton of potential for some serious abuse there if the big G did become evil somewhere down the road, so the more sunshine thrown on their activities now, the better, AFAIC.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/"Google rigs its results," say critics at Senate antitrust hearing
<>
Wow, lots of Google fanboys here. First of all, this hearing isn't for monopoly. This is in regards to antitrust. Competition law is defined as (Google violates #2 in particular):
1. Prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of free trade caused by cartels.
2. Banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
3. Supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.
I guess many are too young to remember that there was once a company called Microsoft that used its power to give competitive edge to its products like Office and Internet Explorer. When a company like Google dominates the marketplace without providing a fair access to 3rd party websites (vs. its own), it is in violation of competition law.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/"Google rigs its results," say critics at Senate antitrust hearing
<>
I knew the love affair with Google wouldn't last long, fyi you should always be going out of your way to switch up the search engines you use on a regular basis.
As for Google itself, the Congress really should have ALL the search engine companies under the same kind of scrutiny. Standards, practices and ethics are important since search engines are so influential. But to my knowledge our society hasn't actually agreed on any standards yet.
This smells a bit like Google's unsuccessful competitors ganging up on them. For example, including a map to the business you just looked up seems pretty handy to me and more or less what the consumer would want. If this is the "damning evidence", color me unimpressed. It is much too easy to type in another search engine in your web browser, Google can harm competitors by providing a valuable services to consumers, but I can't see how they can lock in consumers.
Course since I never was ready to put all my trust in one search engine, I might be biased.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/"Google rigs its results," say critics at Senate antitrust hearing
Google Gobbles Up Zagat's
Haven't used them the last few years, but before that I thought Zagat's done a better job of managing ratings that most johnny-come-latelys. I think that's because enough reviewers tend to review most or all of the restaurants they visit. They don't just submit a review when they are exceptionally pleased or give them 0 stars because of one minor slip up.
That said, the broader its use, the less likely you are to get the dedicated foodies doing the reviews and the more likely you are to only get the extreme reviews and not get the more useful in betweens.
The older I get, the more I think the at least the US needs to do something more to make it painful for these acquisitions to happen. Too few companies control too much to be healthy. What happens if Google implodes? (Or Wal-Mart or AT&T, etc) Companies should get an Alternate Minimum Tax based on above the line revenue that goes up just like personal Income Tax does or some other approach that results in getting bigger getting more painful.
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/Google dives deep into content-generation business with Zagat purchase
<>
The more interesting thing about this, is Google the cloud giant is horrible in leveraging the social space in terms of building next steps. Zagat's model is very much of the old school in terms of business and ratings. Granted Zagats fits nicely in the traditional Google ad revenue space, but does little in terms of innovation and new lines of business.
Google should really have kept Dodgeball (now Foursquare) or bought out a company like Yelp, where the community is an active participant in keeping content fresh and accurate. Social and location based services is how the "mobile" generation is discovering and recommending businesses, not static editorial yellow pages.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/DEAL BOOK/Google to buy Zagat
Liquefaction: Dissolving the Dead
Bio Cremation Process Video
Do these supposed environmental benefits include the production of potassium hydroxide by electrolysis of potassium chloride? or the inefficiencies of transporting the KOH solution via truck-tanker vs existing natural gas pipelines for traditional cremation?
Isn't this very similar to the manufacture of soap via the saponification reaction with sodium hydroxide? So the sewered wastewater would be no worse than a soap manufacturer's wastewater (assuming complete reaction of KOH or post-neautralization with HCL).
I find if interesting that most people will have a difficult time accepting the sewering of human remains, however, "Bones remain and are pulverized to ash in the usual way" will have no effect on them.
All cultures and societies have varying funeral rights and ceremonies. While this may seem odd to us now, in 20 years it will be commonly accepted.
Read the article POPSCI/Florida Funeral Home First to Debut Alternative to Cremation: Liquefaction
<>
This truly gives new meaning to having Aunt Bessie in a vase. Now you can put flowers in the vase and Aunt Bessie can help them grow. It's kinda beautiful if you think about it...... unless the flowers die, oh my.
Read the article POPSCI/Florida Funeral Home First to Debut Alternative to Cremation: Liquefaction
<>
How is this method any more creepy than injecting a dead body with chemical preservatives, putting clothing and makeup on it, then burying it in a chemically treated wooden box? Trying to keep a dead body from decomposing for the sole purpose of placing it somewhere nobody can look at it is actually the creepy thing here.
I for one am glad that we're looking to improve our methods rather than just sticking with "traditions" simply because we don't like to have to think about things.
Read the article POPSCI/Florida Funeral Home First to Debut Alternative to Cremation: Liquefaction
READ MORE TOP COMMENTS: July-August 2011
