News:

It's like that horrible screech you get when the microphone is positioned too close to a speaker, only with cops.

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - LMNO

#24976
Opinon:  Don't name it after a crap art-metal band.
#24977
Discordian Recipes / Re: Cooking with LMNO
December 15, 2008, 07:19:41 PM
It would depend on how much heat you like, and how much chipotle you add.  In this recipie (made for 2), a single chipotle was pleasant for Mrs LMNO, and I added hot sauce.

Other heat options:

Fresh Jalapeno/serrano/hanenero in the sautee

Top with pico de gallo

Various and sundry hot sauces


#24978
Two vast and trunkless legs of stone / Re: Small Talk
December 15, 2008, 07:11:40 PM
                                         Want to see what I                   
                                        can do with this cup?
                                                     /

#24979
Discordian Recipes / Re: Cooking with LMNO
December 15, 2008, 07:09:01 PM
Yes, you could certainly place a grilled or fried tortilla underneath this.  If I had any lying around, I would have.
#24980
Or, you could tell the GSP twunts to get a life, write their own goddamn book, and stop trying to horn in on ours.
#24981
That's my kind of woman!
#24982
I was thinking more like Doctor Who, but whatever.
#24983
As far as I understood it, we're always rewriting BIP.  Taking stuff out, adding new ideas, clarifying old ones.

I see nothing wrong with that.
#24984
Actually, the reason we don't have a "Lollercaust" is because we haven't written anything independently funny.  Most of the funny resides in knowing who we are, and how we interact.
#24985
Discordian Recipes / Re: Cooking with LMNO
December 15, 2008, 05:23:23 PM
Once again, women are pleased when they see my thick slab of bacon.

#24986
Two vast and trunkless legs of stone / Re: Small Talk
December 15, 2008, 04:37:59 PM



                                           Yes, "pegging".  Look it up.
                                                     /                                 


#24987
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 14, 2008, 10:56:35 PM
<TripleZero> http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/neolithicmysterymachine.png
<DudeThatPracticallyWorshipsMadonna> ?
<TripleZero> i don't know either. but i came across it on the internets, it's madonna, so i thought i'd send it to you
<DudeThatPracticallyWorshipsMadonna> well, yay.

... RESPECT THE WOMP!!!!

what's the picture about, anyway?


If you liked it, you shoulda put a ring on it.
#24988
Even simpler:

When things get really small, we have to rely on machines to tell us what's happening.

If you set the machine to detect a wave, it will.

If you set the machine to detect a particle, it will.

You can't set it to detect both.

Here's more detail:

Quote from: John Marburger III, "Beneath Reality"The Schrödinger field pattern in position space determines where a detection event is likely to be found, and its pattern in wavelength space determines the momentum we associate with the object causing the event.

If the events are localized in a small region, the wave pattern will be localized but consequently it will contain many elementary waves – its momentum will not be well-defined.

Conversely, if the momentum detector clicks only for a narrow range of momentum values, the wavelength is well-defined, and the wave pattern must extend over many cycles – its location in space is not well-defined.

You can have waves with well-defined position or well-defined momentum, but not both at once. This is the true meaning of the uncertainty relation first enunciated in 1927 by Heisenberg.

The "Heisenberg uncertainty relation" emerged in an atmosphere of confusion from which it has never quite escaped. Much of the fault lies with Heisenberg himself who was not content with setting forth the bare theory, more or less along the lines I have described above (but in mathematical language), he also tried to make the result more comprehensible with suggestive physical arguments.

For example, he implied that the uncertainty has its origin in the inevitable disturbance caused by the measurement process (which is not inherently a quantum concept). Bohr objected to these explanatory efforts, convinced that the matter was deeper than Heisenberg made it out to be.

As I see it, most problems of interpretation are resolved by the simple fact that the microscopic theory does not refer to any physical waves or particles. It refers to well-defined detectors and unambiguous events of detection.

Accounts that ascribe position to particles and momentum to waves apply macroscopic language inappropriately to microscopic nature. You can set a detector to register an event with well-defined momentum, or you can set it to record an event with well-defined position. That does not entitle you to say that the event is caused by a "wave" or by a "particle."
#24989
I may offer a nano excerpt.

#24990
I'll see about retooling/adding BIP/Shrapnel/et al stuff.

Are we depositing in this thread?