Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Something else that I'll explain below (Score 1) 348

by sbillard (#41416191) Attached to: Favorite way to add capsaicin to a dish:
Hey Fishbulb, I just noticed your nickname. You must be a great person. Of my favorite things, hot sauce and Simpsons, you've referenced one of my favorites in each category. Love that Mr. Sparkle episode and I've used "Fishbulb" ofter as a nickname in other online places. williefudpucker at g mail dot com

Comment: Re:MLB needs more replay NBA,NHL,NFL have it (Score 1) 141

by sbillard (#37692314) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Project Scope For MLB Robot Umpires?
The progression of events that can occur after a ball is put in play makes too much instant replay hard or impossible.
It's working well for home run review and I agree with others in this thread it can be expanded to calling balls/strikes.

Things happen on the field very quickly in response to out/safe calls. One things leads to another and in rapid succession. Very hard to unwind and make right the events of a play if an "out" call was changed to "safe", or the other way around.

Runners on 1st and 3rd. 1 out. Batter hits into a 5-4 fielder's choice with an E3 on the play (error at first).
The runner at 3rd base got looked back, was not able to score on the play. Remains at 3rd.
Batter takes 2nd base on the error.
Play is challenged and upon further review, base runner was safe at 2nd.
The error at first is not in dispute, so what do you do with the 3 base runners?
Load the bases? Not fair to the batter who should be at 2nd.
Award the run from 3rd with runners now at 2nd and 3rd? Not fair to the fielding team where the slowpoke at 3rd could not score even with the ball getting thrown all around the infield.
... and a million other scenarios. Now imagine more than 1 call during a single play getting overturned.

Not saying we should not have more automation, just saying baseball is different in some ways that make replay review hard to do fairly and consistently. It's the nature of the game - and a beautiful game it is.

Comment: Re:But I have to have auto insurance... (Score 1) 1505

by sbillard (#34537390) Attached to: Judge Declares Federal Healthcare Plan (Partly) Unconstitutional

the government can force me to have auto insurance, but not health insurance?

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

Health care is something everybody is going to need from birth to death.

Call me a socialist if you must, but a for profit health care system is flawed. The judge was right to rule that mandatory participation in a for profit enterprise is unconstitutional. My insurer gladly takes the premium out of my pay check, but is forbids me the operation I need. That procedure would cut into their bottom line.

It's unfortunate that many will take this the wrong way and I'm sure mainstream media won't help to clear the air. It's unfortunate this ruling will be seen by the tea party as affirmation that "ObamaCare" is wrong instead of the correct interpretation that "ObamaCare" didn't go far enough (public option).

Before you complain about your taxes being used to pay for someone else's health care, please understand you're paying for it anyway. Emergency rooms will treat those who need urgent care. The uninsured wait until their condition develops into an emergency instead of getting the stitches or meds or whatever two weeks prior as a routine thing for a routine cost.

Don't want to buy auto insurance? Take the bus.
Don't want heath care? Don't be born in the first place.

Comment: Re:predictable comment theme (Score 1) 415

by sbillard (#32902658) Attached to: Nuclear Power Could See a Revival

it is healthy to fear a tiger - but the response to fear doesn't always have to be to run away. Translate into a list of perceived hazards; provide explanation of how resultant risks are managed.

I think you're right.

Hazard: Tiger has sharp teeth.
Risk: My throat becomes chew toy
How Managed: run away.

Hazard: Tiger has sharp claws.
Risk: Disembowelment.
How Managed: run away.

Hazard: Tiger is powerful carnivorous predator.
Risk: Overpowered
How Managed: run away.

Hazard: Tiger is fast.
Risk: Overtaken.
How Managed: run away? No. Buy a rock from Lisa Simpson!

Comment: Re:Am I the only... (Score 1) 602

by sbillard (#32593708) Attached to: Digitally Filtering Out the Drone of the World Cup
I watched that game just to see what all the fuss was about. B.O.R.I.N.G. Recap of the WHOLE GAME.

1. Ball gets kicked around, goes out of bounds. Ball is put back in play.
2. Some guy falls down and grabs his leg in agony.
3. Same guy gets up 30 seconds later and is running at full speed again.
Repeat steps 1, 2, 3 for 90 minutes.

A scoreless tie is a pointless waste of time. Physically demanding perhaps, but it's not sport. It's a kabuki dance.

While some would say a pitching duel in baseball is boring, you can be sure of one thing. SOMEONE will win the game. It will not end in a scoreless tie. Therefore, not a waste of time. Why bother if the game can end in a tie, especially a scoreless tie?

I will never understand how you could claim that game was interesting or a worthwhile endeavor for anyone, player or spectator.

To each his own I suppose. Enjoy the tournament and, good luck to your team.

Comment: Re:We are the game! (Score 1) 496

by sbillard (#31856594) Attached to: Maybe the Aliens Are Addicted To Computer Games
And also this The Inner Light Theory
It's not impossible.
Could be an explanation for the limits of physics as we know them. Physics hasn't got the essence of reality pinned down. There is plenty we don't know. Perhaps we can't know.
Ex: the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, mathematical singularity of a black hole and the big bang.

Sure, we humans have made great progress, and I expect CERN will soon peel things back even more.
I find this idea fascinating, compelling even.

Comment: Re:Anti-intellectualism (Score 2, Insightful) 899

by sbillard (#29418515) Attached to: How To Make Science Popular Again?

Invented, just like chess.

No, no no. Getting OT here, but I disagree.

There are many aspects of mathematics that, for years, were purely intellectual pursuits. In many cases it was often much later when their relationships with nature was revealed.
Hyperbolic geometry, and the Mandelbrot set, for example, were always there in the math, long before their discovery.
The realm of math exists. It exists whether we choose to explore it or not.

Discovered, just like the "new world" and exo-planets.

Comment: Re:Wrong field (Score 3, Insightful) 321

by sbillard (#29390423) Attached to: Creating a Quantum Superposition of Living Things
I could be wrong, but I think the point of the experiment is to learn where and how quantum aspects interface with macro-objects. A virus is much larger than a photon, for example. If they can reproduce "delayed choice" and "quantum eraser" type effects on a virus, then that would really be something.

It's not a test to see whether something is alive or dead. It's a test to understand if and/or how "which-path" observations collapse the wavefunction for macro-objects,

IANAP, so please enlighten me if I missed the point.

Comment: Re:Maybe they can't be detected (Score 1) 553

by sbillard (#29150605) Attached to: Initial Tests Fail To Find Gravitational Waves
I just posted something similar in this thread. Your "pet" theory seems like common sense to me.
I don't understand how they expect to detect a gravity wave. It's a distortion of space itself.
Only an "outside" observer would notice the ripple.

I bounced this idea off a few physicists...but they don't seem to like it

I wonder if your idea was disliked due to something you've obviously misunderstood, or if it was disliked because it was threatening to them?

Comment: Re:Clear up a bit of confusion here: (Score 1) 553

by sbillard (#29150019) Attached to: Initial Tests Fail To Find Gravitational Waves
Wouldn't the gravitational wave distort space itself and everything in it?
Perhaps I'm not thinking correctly, and I'm sure the folks working on this are far smarter than I. I would expect you can only observe this from the perspective of a higher dimension. The fact that space is warped by a gravity wave is not "known" to the light beam.

Imagine a perfect 3-D Euclidian space, now put an observer in that space with a laser or a full blown LIGO. Observer fires the laser and the light travels perfectly straight and covers a specific distance in a specific amount of time.
Both you and the observer agree on this.
Now bend, twist, or scrunch up that perfect 3-D Euclidian space, making it more like hyperbolic geometry. This is the effect we expect from a gravity wave, yes? When the observer fires his laser this time, he sees the light travel perfectly straight and covers the same "distance" as before.
But you would disagree. From your "outside" perspective, you would say the light did not travel "straight" this time, and that the light traveled a shorter distance, if "space" was scrunched up, or a longer distance if "space" was stretched.

How then, can we possibly detect a distortion of space when it is the same space we occupy? We are the "observer" above and LIGO will always tell us the light in each arm is traveling the same distance, even if one arm is distorted by a gravity wave.

What am I missing (besides a degree in physics)?

The end of labor is to gain leisure.

Working...