Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? (Score 1) 599

It is a regional dialectical usage, mostly in the midland US. It's spread, but is less common elsewhere, and pretty much absent in New England and outside the US. In most other places it requires a preceding negative construction, eg "Activists aren't as effective any more because they get caught up in this sort of shite, leaving important worries like electing good people to govern us laguishing on the back burner." It is often a rather confusing construction to people who haven't seen it before, because they're used to the negation beforehand. So it seems like you're trying to negate your own point, decreasing clarity.

Comment: Re:The fucking cat (Score 1) 172

You just described the Everettian model. That model doesn't have any paradox for Schrodinger's cat. Several of the others (the ones Schrodinger was criticizing) do. EG de Broglie-Bohm theory, Transactional QM, and Objective Collapse theories don't have the issue, while von Neumann/Wigner does.

Comment: Re:The fucking cat (Score 3, Informative) 172

Actually, it was that if the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory was correct then that would be the absurd conclusion.

So the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong, as is any other interpretation that necessarily comes to the same absurd conclusion.

The interpretations that don't make such a conclusion are unaffected by the thought experiment.

Comment: Re:Heisenberg compensator ... (Score 1) 83

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is just the Fourier uncertainty principle applied to QM. Position is the Fourier transform of momentum. You get an uncertainty principle between two things which are related by the Fourier transform, it's just a fact of math and not some mysterious property of quantum systems.

Comment: Temperature regulation for caloric expenditure (Score 3, Interesting) 496

by DMUTPeregrine (#49330621) Attached to: Hacking Weight Loss: What I Learned Losing 30 Pounds
One way to passively burn more energy that I don't see mentioned enough is to simply lower the ambient temperature (and don't add more clothing). Staying in a cooler room (or not using a heavy blanket when sleeping, etc) can use a significant amount of extra energy. Sleeping humans use between 20 and 80 kCal/hour, depending on ambient temperature, blankets, etc. (80-20)*8=480kCal potential burn, per night of sleep. Over the course of a week that's 3360kCal, or nearly a pound of body fat's worth of energy. Use your basal metabolic rate to burn more energy by staying in cooler environments.

Fear is the greatest salesman. -- Robert Klein

Working...