_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
J Larsen
-
Posts
2,582 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Donations
0.00 USD
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by J Larsen
-
-
It is also worth noting that nearly all international commodities markets are dollar-denominated. Oil makes the headlines, but precious metals, grains, etc all trade in dollars. Some part of the gains seen in international commodities markets over the past couple years is attributable to the declining value of the dollar, which speaks to Guy's first point.
The second point I think is a little more slippery, and I *think* Guy would agree with me on that. There would doubtlessly be some impact, but it is not likely to be catastrophic. It seems to me the most likely consequence would be some degree of upward pressure on interest rates. I happen to disagree with Guy on the impact of dropping the dollar standard on demand for dollars; I think there would be a real effect (just look at how many dollars foreign governments keep on their balance sheets - I think that at least to some extent this represents a hedge against the effect of currency fluctuations on commodities markets).
Finally, to the extent that everyone realizes there is a non-zero probability of OPEC dropping the dollar standard, this has already been priced into the dollar.
-
Because historically the dollar has been one of the least volatile and most plentiful currencies.
-
Viewing distance is certainly part of it (as many Chuck Close, impressionist or divisionist paintings will demonstrate), but have you ever plugged your computer into an HD LCD TV and, say, tried to work in a spreadsheet? In my experience, it is painful, regardless of the viewing distance. Granted, I haven't tried this on the new set but I'm not optimistic.
Now with something like a spreadsheet you are realy concentrating on fine, static details, and I will admit that the extent to which one perceives this in a moving picture is questionable.
-
From what I gather, I won't really be able to appreciate 1080 on a 42" screen. Still, the more I read, the less I understand.
1080 on a 42" screen works out to about 50-60 ppi (about half the resolution of a high-end computer monitor). It has generally been observed that the human eye resolves differences in ppi up to about 300 ppi. So I would expect that you could see a difference - I certainly do on mine. But as always your best bet is to go to a good store that has the TVs set up properly and find out on your own. In NYC, I've found that the audiophile shops are the best places to go for comparing TVs (although naturally the bargains are elsewhere).
-
I think it is extraordinarily unlikely for the universe to be in a superposition of states. I remember as an undergrad being asked on an exam to come up with a rough estimate of the probability of leaning against a wall and rematerializing on the other side. I recall the time scale for this event being something like a million times the age of the universe.
-
As expected, Krauss claims to have been deeply misconstrued by New Scientist (which I don't find to be a very good source for anything, frankly):
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11...orten-univ.html
-
The second law argument is simply wrong. The application of quantum mechanical principles to macroscopic objects in and of itself isn't wrong in principle, but one needs to be very careful. Macroscopic superpositions have been observed, but only in special laboratory situations (and only for devices like SQUIDS that can barely be considered macroscopic). Also, I believe some researchers have been able to do single and double slit experiments with buckyballs.
-
So, the universe suffers from "stage fright?"
I suppose you could look at it that way, if you take a very narrow view of what constitutes an observation, as Krause does.
I personally take a very broad view - I am inclined to believe that "observation", in the quantum mechanical sense, does not require conciousness (this is indeed the view historically taken by the overwhelming majority if physicists, with Wigner being a notable exception). But it turns out to be very difficult to design an experiment to determine which view is correct, so this is really a matter of personal bias and speculation.
In any event, it bears noting that statistically speaking it is extraoridinarily unlikely for any macroscopic object to be in a superposition of states, so pratically speaking this is much ado about nothing.
-
What if the coyote would never look down?
What if Adam & Eve would have never opened their eyes?
The point isn't that nothing can happen if nothing is observed. The point is that the act of observation can alter the course of future events. This has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt through Bell's Experiments and subsequent, similar experiments of greater sophistication.
As the article correctly points out, a crucial open question is "what constitutes an observation?" I tend to take a far more broad view of what constitutes an observation than what Krause takes, but I must admit that this is based on my own personal bias and not on scientific evidence.
In any event, I think the article must have somewhat distorted the views of Krause (who is a well-respected physicist), as the article makes it sound like the evolution of a system subsequent to observation is deterministic, which no one has ever claimed. What really happens is the probabilities of future events are altered (the exception is if one performs continuous measurements, which is not the case here).
In other words, at most we increased the probability of the demise of the universe in 1998.
-
This isn't quite as far fetched as it might sound; Google "Bell's Inequality" (or "Bell's Theorem" or "Bell Experiment") for example.
NB: John Bell is one guy who should really have won a Nobel prize; it is shocking to me that he was overlooked.
-
Also,
Can someone explain, or share a link explaining resolution for me? I thought I understood resolution until I started talking to people about motion pictures.
1080p is overkill for a monitor under a certain dimension, from a certain distance at 20/20 vision, etc.
Thanks.
These do a pretty good job:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
Where there is serious room for improvement in modern displays is the dpi. Of course, addressing that would considerably increase the power demands of the monitor.
-
Porcy, FWIW I agree with you on all five points. It is a serious consideration when I buy things. I have very precious little time for home entertainment, so I guess I "carbon splurge" on the equipment so that in the few hours a week I have to actually use it I get the most satisfying experience. That said, when the TV is on the lights go off, so it is close a neutral impact in my house.
-
Inch for inch, LCDs use about the same amount of power as CRTs. My 40" model is 235W, which isn't nothing but isn't so awful either. I probably use more energy playing a CD.
-
I don't know the Panasonic, but this weekend I upgraded to a 40" Sony XBR4 and it is incredible. The picture from even standard DVDs is stunning. Best of all, there is absolutely no blurring in action scenes at all, unlike my previous Sony. It's wirth a look.
-
Color of Spring is the only other album of theirs that is even sort of good. The Mark Hollis solo album is ok, but at times verges on overplaying its hand IMO.
The unedited version of Laughing Stock is worth picking up if you can find it (it's not particularly easy to find as I understand).
-
The Louis Smith is waaayyy at the top of my list. Every other BN that I really, really felt like I had to have has been made available in one way or another in the last few years.
-
I do this intentionally every now and then - I find "reseting" my ears to be useful every now and again.
-
This person hasn't done very good research. First of all, quantum computing, a field I worked in after abandoning string theory, is facing essentially the same enormous technical challenges today as when Feynman first conceived of the idea in the 80s. You have to completely decouple a multi-particle quantum system from its environment for long enough to run several iterations of the same computation - no small feat given that this means, among other things, operating as close to absolute zero as possible and and not allowing the system to heat as it computes (which besides being difficult is REALLY expensive, not least of all because it relies on liquid helium which is a rare and limited resource) . Secondly, even if quantum computing is achieved, only two useful algorithms are known to exist: one for factoring and one for searching (as in google-type searching). The factoring algorithm is a devastating threat to RSA, but quantum encryption (which isn't nearly as technically challenging and is unrelated to quantum computing) is already commercially available so that should be a moot point. The search algorithm allows you to run a computer search in the square root of the time that it takes on a classical computer. I don't see this as a threat to anyone's privacy. It is rather predictable that computer searches would get faster and more powerful, even in the absence of quantum computing.
I don't have much to say about nanorobots except that the only person I ever met who was working on such devices was trying to fabricate machines that would essentially chew through blockages in peoples' arteries.
I think Guy was on the money - there obviously WILL always be people looking for objectionable applications of technology - that is already happening. This is not a reason to fear or object to nanotech (which is such a wildly diverse field that I find it problematic speaking of it as one thing), anymore than it is a reason to outlaw the internet, for example.
-
That used to be common in NYC of the 1950s/60s. People threw away really good pieces. I actually furnished my first apartment from the curbside stores, except my bed--there is a limit.
I'm sure it isn't as common as it used to be, but it still happens quite a bit. A friend got a complete set of 50s Eames chairs off the street a few years ago.
-
I saw Girls Against Boys tonight. They were pretty awesome. Every bit as good as I remember them being about 13 years ago.
-
My Herman and Piano boxes showed up today
. Man Mosaic is fast. I had the Capitol box from the first time it went OOP - it has some interesting stuff on it but overall I could honestly live without it pretty easily. -
J. Larsen: you had 1000 hip-hop sides?! Q: have you heard Nas "Where Are They Now" from Hip Hop Is Dead? if somehow the answer is no, do so posthaste. "you'll fuckin' shit," as Miles told Ralph J. Gleason about the first Laura Nyro album.
Haven't heard it. Honestly, Nas lost me after the first record. But I'll check it out online.
But yeah, I have at least 1000 hip hop lps and 12"s. They fill an entire not-very-small closet. Probably my favorite semi-obscure record in my collection is the Jugganots album. But I've got a bunch of good original 80s and 90s sides. I used to have an even more expansive collection of early 80s - early 90s punk/"indie", but I sold it off through the back pages of MRR in the pre-ebay days to finance my college education.
-
Iron Maiden - The Number Of The Beast/Metallica - Kill 'em All (tie) - These two albums inspired me to run out and buy a bass guitar (and then switch to guitar a few years later). Metal dominated my listening for the next 10 years.
I don't think I've ever gotten Jump in the Fire out of my head. I remember Metallica as a local group. I loved this stuff as a kid.
-
The various experiments of Markus Popp in the early 90s expanded the universe of sounds I could "connect to" in music. The first album I had was Oval's Systemische, so I suppose that goes in this thread.
I was never really into jazz until a friend made me a tape of Kind of Blue in high school, so I guess that is another.
The first music I loved was Black Sabbath back when I was literally four or five years old... it made me want to find out about more music like it and hence sort of started the musical odyssey I'm still on, so Paranoid (which I'm pretty sure was my first) would be another.
I had a "country is inherrently bad" bias until hearing Johnny Cash @ Folsom Prison.
I'm sort of embarrased to admit this now, but as I recall, rap (except for the Fat Boys, who I loved from elementary school) was very off-putting to me until Run-DMC's cover of Walk This Way came out (bear in mind that I was 11 in 1986), and from there I developed a library of probably well over 1000 hip hop albums. (The bulk of the record collecting aspect had to wait until I was old enough to work, but Walk This Way was probably the gateway.)
The other significant musical realization for me was in punk/"indie" music, but that was something I think I primarily got into through live shows at the Gilman in Berkeley.
Dispellng Economic Myths
in Miscellaneous - Non-Political
Posted
That is obvious, but it isn't what Guy asserted. What he asserted is if the value of the dollar drops by X%, then this will have an X% upward impact on the dollar value of oil prices. Other forces could have additional upward or downward impact on prices.
In response to your question, I think you are asking what would happen if oil revenues as expressed in dollars flattened while the dollar continued to depreciate relative to other currencies, say the Euro. All this would indicate is that the value of oil was declining in "real terms" (I'm slightly abusing the language but you know what I mean). If priced in Euros, it would be observed to be declining in "nominal terms" as well. Any other possibility is ruled out by arbitrage.