Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space

+ - Was The Early Universe 2 Dimensional Spacetime?->

Submitted by
astroengine
astroengine writes "According to two theoretical physicists, our current four-dimensional Universe (3 dimensions of space, 1 dimension of time) is actually an evolution from a lower-dimensional state. The early Universe may have existed with just one spatial dimension (plus one time dimension) up until the Universe cooled below an energy state of 100 TeV. At this point, a transition occurred when the spatial dimension "folded" to create 2 dimensions. At 1 TeV, it folded again to create the Universe we know today: 3 dimensions of space, one of time. This may sound like a purely theoretical study, but there might be evidence of the evolution of universal dimensions in cosmic ray measurements and, potentially, in gravitational wave cut-off frequency."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Flat panel monitors all over again (Score 4, Insightful) 163

by gelfling (#31346644) Attached to: Western Digital Launches First SSD

Just when large CRT monitors became affordable albeit heavy, the companies rolled out smaller flat panels. Not only where they cheaper for them to make, they were cheaper to ship and had much lower field defect rates. So of course they charged more for them.

Similarly right when magnetic drives are near-free, the companies roll out smaller, and in some cases slower SSD's which are less expensive to make, cheaper to ship and over the long run (probably) have lower field defect rates born of their no moving parts. So of course they will charge more for them.

Everything old is new again. Wait and see companies that offer Netbooks with NO storage as an 'option' and then charge up the wazoo for a crappy sized SSD touted as 'premium'.

Comment: Re:I lived there for better than a dozen years... (Score 1) 819

by tmosley (#31346542) Attached to: Officials Sue Couple Who Removed Their Lawn
Better watch out, because you're next.

You see, they have infiltrated the Federal Government. The same crazies (yes, just like in the movie) just happened to get control of places like California and Detroit first. This is not an R or a D problem. Both parties are infected. They talk freedom and civil liberties while they are in the minority, but as soon as they get into power, they start stripping them away at a faster and faster pace, until the whole damn world either cuts them loose, or the whole world collapses back into the Dark Ages.

Comment: Re:Sure they could have been readily used. (Score 1) 253

by CAIMLAS (#31346524) Attached to: Terry Childs's Slow Road To Justice

The realistic thing to do would be to make the jury a completely random sampling: if you're selected for jury duty, you're going to be on the jury, period. None of this defense/prosecution exclusion based on knowledge, crap.

Yeah, you'd have more hung juries and you'd have more guilty people getting off, but that's not a conviction, upholding the whole "guilty until proven innocent" part.

Another thing to do would be to make the jury randomly selected within the demographic of the defender, but with a bias not only for the defense but also for the offense: in this case, you'd have a statistically higher number of tech workers and government employees, for instance. (Of course, knowing how gov't works, that would certainly bias the jury in his favor.)

Making a "jury of peers" is dicey because it can lead to nepotism and plutocratic results with ease, where no justice is found. Still, I think I would prefer this to the current setup.

Comment: Re:Microsoft had a solution (Score 1) 690

by Ihlosi (#31346432) Attached to: $1M Prize For Finding Cause of Unintended Acceleration

a simple disconnect switch on the +12V wire going to the fuel pump mounted within reach of the driver would be cheap and 100% effective.

Just until you get sued into oblivion for unintended deceleration, because some joker/kid/pet thought it would be funny to hit that switch while the car is going 80 mph on the highway. Or people just complain about the killswitch activating mysteriously just before they "happened" to have an accident.

Comment: Re:I'm paying for WHAT? (Score 1) 577

by AK Marc (#31341792) Attached to: Microsoft VP Suggests 'Net Tax To Clean Computers
Mostly, it'll cover the subsidies for people who can't afford insurance.

Right, exactly what I said, it'll be paid to insurance companies.

None of that will result in lower premiums (note that there is absolutely nothing in the current healthcare reform bill that is intended to lower healthcare costs). It'll just allow about two thirds of the people currently uninsured who are also too wealthy for Medicaid to get insurance.

I'm lost. How can you have people that now have "free" health care by getting services and not paying for them, passing the cost on to those that do pay (with insurance paying most health care costs), then eliminate that cost passed on, and declare that it can't affect the cost of insurance? Are they going to just increase the margins of insurance and make more, without reducing their premiums? And the hospital, once 100% pay, will they keep their pricing up and just make more profit? I'm curious what effect you think 100% (supposedly) coverage will have on the cost of hospital care and insurance rates. I would have thought it would result in some effect, but obviously I'm not looking at it the way you are.

No, the payoff to the insurance companies is the requirement that everyone get health insurance.

I'm lost. Really, lost. I state that the $1 trillion will go to the insurance companies, and you state "no" as if the $1 trillion won't go to them, then state that it will go to them. You are agreeing with what I'm saying, but in the most disagreeable way possible. You've objected to everything I've said, but contradicted nothing. You just don't like the manner in which I stated it.

Anyways, don't look for cost reductions in the current bill. There aren't any. There aren't even any intentions that costs should go down.

It isn't a zero sum game, but even said, it is a finite sum. There is only so much health care to go around, so I'll treat it like a zero sum for a second. You can't inject $1 trillion into a system and have no effect. Either the profits will shoot up at the expense of taxpayers, or costs will go down. If profits increased by $1 trillion, then some heads will roll. So some costs somewhere have to go down. Maybe not by the whole $1 trillion will go to cost reduction, but some of it must. You pretend that none of it will.

The "goal" is to reduce cost. It reduces cost of insurance to those that can't afford it. It reduces costs to everyone at the hospital because more people will pay their bills. The goal is to reduce cost at the healthcare side by increasing cost at the taxpayer side. It shifts cost so that it reduces healthcare costs. At the cost of taxes, so someone could argue that it doesn't "reduce" cost, but only shifts it, but you didn't make that argument, you just made the argument that it won't affect health care costs.

Asynchronous inputs are at the root of our race problems. -- D. Winker and F. Prosser

Working...