The health benefits from male circumcision outweigh the risks, says the American Academy of Pediatrics in its latest guidelines on the controversial procedure published Monday.

The health benefits from male circumcision outweigh the risks, says the American Academy of Pediatrics in its latest guidelines on the controversial procedure published Monday.

Are you serious? Membership in that group is, I guess, the thing that's most strongly correlated with making money off the ritual. Hence the information content of their statement is close to zero. I would put them in the category of every other group that's about to lose an existing source of income and trying to prevent that. In terms of bias, that's where the most aggressive lobby groups are to be found.

[eta: never mind. That was probably sarcasm failure on my part.]

I read the explanation when I first saw the video. I'm no rememberator, but I call it explosive rebound. Some portion of the explosive force pushed downward through the can, hitting the solid floor beneath and then reflecting enough of the remaining energy back into the can causing it to lift off the ground like it did.

I'm sure we have a scientist on staff who can tell me how wrong I am.

That really sucks. The article depressed me a little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linked Article

The experts agree that doing nothing is not an option at this point. "The problem is entirely soluble, and coral reefs can be saved through concerted effort over this and the following two or three generations," said Kaufman. "There is absolutely no excuse for failure to do this, and if we do fail our generation will forever be remembered for unimaginable, unforgivable stupidity and sloth."

If that happens, then truer words were never spoken. I can't help but think our last few generations have done a damn good job of fucking over the planet.

__________________
Allan Glenn. 1984-2005 RIP

Under no circumstances should Quentin Tarantino be allowed to befoul Star Trek.

It is interesting to note that it wouldn't take that many qbits to compute the universe. On the order of a thousand. It's almost recursive in that it appears the universe is basically quantum and quantum computers of modest size could in theory compute the universe.

It is interesting to note that it wouldn't take that many qbits to compute the universe. On the order of a thousand. It's almost recursive in that it appears the universe is basically quantum and quantum computers of modest size could in theory compute the universe.

No, quantum computers of modest size can simulate quantum systems of modest size. So maybe, maybe you could simulate a classical version of the universe (of course there is no such thing) but you can't get most of the answers out (you only get to measure once). To simulate a universe of qubits, you need a universe of qubits. Or more time. What you can get rid of is the exponential slowdown, which is huge.

Always wondered about that, but never been very good with the Math.
I mean, after all, velocity is always relative, right? And, then there is the whole Time Dilation thing.
I reckon it will be a few more years before we can get any meaningful data on all that.
Suppose I won't get to see it.
Now, I'm REALLY bummed.

__________________
Control is an illusion. The chaos is part of the fun.
-Susan Hatty Steinsapir

Always wondered about that, but never been very good with the Math.
I mean, after all, velocity is always relative, right? And, then there is the whole Time Dilation thing.
I reckon it will be a few more years before we can get any meaningful data on all that.
Suppose I won't get to see it.
Now, I'm REALLY bummed.

Wow, that's a link to a 4 year old post (did that FTL neutrino thing really happen that long ago?), but I still has questions for the physicists.

FTA:

Quote:

Outside the box: Einstein's Special Relativity works inside the smallest square.
The University of Adelaide researchers have extended the mathematics
to a world beyond Einstein's limit. Image provided by Professor Jim Hill

...

4. To clear up a confusion regarding the labelling of the image. One velocity v refers to the velocity of the first observer; u refers to the velocity of the second observer.

Okay, but that doesn't clear up my confusion regarding what the capital U represents. I'm assuming it is the difference in velocities, v minus u, or I suppose that's called the relative velocity.

Since the values are scalar, does it suggest the observers are moving directly toward or away from each other along the same vector? If so, is that a simplifying assumption? Does it matter for our purposes? (Or am I totally missing some essential aspect of relativity where the direction is relative too?)

Okay, so looking at the the center square in isolation, the purple part is where v > -u (positive U implies observers are moving away from each other?), and the green part is where v < -u (negative U implies observers are moving toward each other?). Looking at my drawings, that only works about half the time and it depends on where they "start" "relative" (teehee) to each other. Two objects that start moving toward each other will switch to moving away from each other when they pass each other (assuming no collision, obviously) with no change to their individual or relative velocities. So what's the point of positive and negative U in this chart? What is a negative relative velocity? Would absolute values work as well? Isn't the sign on U completely arbitrary, depending on which observer you pick to be u vs. v?

That wasn't even my original question!

Okay, so. Looking at the purple half of the center square in isolation. I get it. If both observers are moving at almost c, in opposite directions, their relative velocity will still max out at c. No problem, that's special relativity.

Then, according this cool chart, if u is moving at almost c and v is moving at greater than c (the orange bits), then their relative velocity will be greater than c. Okay, sure, why not.

But! We have another purple square at the top right. If both observers are moving at greater than c, in opposite directions, their relative velocity is once again constrained to be less than c? What in the fuck is up with that?

I'm not even going to try to parse the rest of this graph, with its cool curves (even tho I rly rly want to!) until I can understand the purple and green parts first.

__________________

Last edited by Ensign Steve; 04-13-2016 at 08:55 PM.