Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s the area he’s from, my human geo book had a full section on stuff like that, one of the maps even listed where soda in general is called pop, soda, and cola, and mixes of the three…pretty funny
@V oh the simpleness,
@Arly, you pour it when the cup is tilted like hmmm…-makes diagram-
So top line is drink, bottom two are your cup, then you get little to no fizz is done properly :3
~/
/ /Vusys said: Glass bottle > aluminium can > glass cup > plastic bottle > plastic cupAnd seriously, you yanks. “Pop” and “soda”, really? They’re the best words you can come up with?
Then what do you redcoats call it?
tarheel91 said:DarkDragoon said:tarheel91 said:David said: Eum, it’s about his cat. Sheldon actually explained the theory in an episode of the Big Bang Theory…You have a box right? And a cat inside the box right?
You do not see the cat, you see only a box.
Thus, the cat in there could be alive… or dead.
But you don’t know until you open the box do you?
Thus, the joke.
No, not quite.
It really started with the issue in physics that things can act like particles or waves (very different) at the same time. In a sense, they are both at once. These are two very different states. It’s like dribbling a ball and spinning that same ball on your finger at the same time. How is this possible?
That’s where the idea of superposition comes in. Of course, it deals with a lot more than just waves/particles, but that’s the easiest one to understand. Superposition says that both states/options exist at once. When you observe it, though, it loses that duality.
“One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a “blurred model” for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.” – Schrodinger himself
Basically, there is either radioactive decay that ultimately kills the cat or nothing happens. Because of superposition on the subatomic level, this means that both states exist at once. If you follow the chain, this means that the cat is both dead and alive inside the box.
And that’s why we leave this stuff to the people who have way too much free time on their hands o;
Or get paid lots of money to work at CERN and think about this sort of stuff.
Si Senor!
tarheel91 said:David said: Eum, it’s about his cat. Sheldon actually explained the theory in an episode of the Big Bang Theory…You have a box right? And a cat inside the box right?
You do not see the cat, you see only a box.
Thus, the cat in there could be alive… or dead.
But you don’t know until you open the box do you?
Thus, the joke.
No, not quite.
It really started with the issue in physics that things can act like particles or waves (very different) at the same time. In a sense, they are both at once. These are two very different states. It’s like dribbling a ball and spinning that same ball on your finger at the same time. How is this possible?
That’s where the idea of superposition comes in. Of course, it deals with a lot more than just waves/particles, but that’s the easiest one to understand. Superposition says that both states/options exist at once. When you observe it, though, it loses that duality.
“One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a “blurred model” for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.” – Schrodinger himself
Basically, there is either radioactive decay that ultimately kills the cat or nothing happens. Because of superposition on the subatomic level, this means that both states exist at once. If you follow the chain, this means that the cat is both dead and alive inside the box.
And that’s why we leave this stuff to the people who have way too much free time on their hands o;
Rep said: Your first paragraph is supportive of my argument.
There are no steps, David. You catch the person in possession of the narcotic, you detain for a day, you execute. What can the drug dealer do short of blowing the person out of jail?You read it completely wrong. I said execute buyers, not dealers. Unless I fail at Economics, no buyers means no demand.
This is a hypothetical solution. I actually got a few people in my class on this side, as well as my teacher, who suggested this idea. It’s an idea that may or may not be going through the thought processes of the people in government. I just wanted to see some legitimate arguments against this idea, which is why I came here. My class wasn’t doing so good.
@Pir
Cars aid us by moving us to our destinations faster. Guns are used for defense. Granted, they take lives, but they have at least one positive trait. What do illegal drugs do for us?Then you’re going to make more people want to buy out of curiosity, only when you get a sizeable chunk of the population killed due to buying will it have any real effect at all.
Plus I mean, how the hell is ANY government or organization gonna pull something of this scale off?
Sides going communist or sumthin like that
[EDIT]I assume we want to stay capitalist and noncommunist correct?Pirkid said:dee32693 said: LOl my mother says you should legalize all of it. An adult should be able to eff themselves over as much as they want while instead of the government “paying” for it they would pocket the profit. she says just as many kids are screwed up/dead over fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related deaths so why nitpick?
No execution.You said: 5. Wrong metaphor. It’s like killing slaveowners to end slavery. The supply side would be the slave traders. No slave owners = no slave buyers = no market for slaves. Similarly: No drug addicts = no drug buyers = no market for illegal drugs.NOPE! I disagree, they would just become more underground and most likely more volatile. Why not just do the above?
Hey, people die from car crashes and stabbings as well, so why should guns be banned?
Argument is invalid. The end does not justify the means.
Unless you have a wealthy organization to back you up!
Then you’re set to do whatever the hell you want!Yes, and the like math or physics behind it is stupidly long, when one sentence could sum it up lolol
