Slashdot Mirror

And yet Alaska remains untouched!

Yeah, about that:

https://www.popsci.com/alaska-...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com...

I work in a noisy environment (lots of people talking about interesting things that I'm not supposed to listen to), so noise-cancelling headphones are a godsend. They need some sound to work well, though.

After reading this article I decided to try to listen to video game music while working instead of the usual classic concentration tracks. I do not need to be relaxed to work, on the contrary. After having tested video game music for a few weeks, I feel it makes a big positive difference.

There are some laser "hologram" technologies able to draw some simple, small linear figures in the air, but they're nowhere "mobile" sized, and it's possible that they'll never be, because physics.

https://www.popsci.com/secret-...

https://www.sciencenews.org/ar...

Why not sterilize the body before composting? It can be done with feces, why not with cadavers? All it takes is heat, aka pasteurizing.

3M and Dupont executives need to be put on the chain gang cleaning this mess up. I would take immigrants over no ban on PERC. I do not know where to start with organophosphates.

Solution
CO2 Outline

More concerning CO2 Emissions items that could be fixed only with the stroke of a pen:
Brazil’s new president plans to plunder the Amazon
U.S. Law
A Century of Fire Suppression Is Why California Is in Flames : California’s forests emitted more carbon than they soaked up between 2001 and 2010

I'll believe it when they find pieces of the drone embedded in the nosecone or find LiPo residue. There is a disturbing fervor regarding the "dangers" of drones at the moment that can result in some hilarious/disturbing claims about their capabilities/risks. I have literally had family members believe that the palm sized quad-copter I have is going to chop off their fingers, and police have made some outlandish claims that were later proven to be demonstrably false.

NYPD flew helicopter at drone
Park helicopter tries to knock drone out of air

> Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10
> roentgens would only have an even chance of survival , the
> radiation belt obviously present an obstacle to space flight."
>
> Yet they sent men to the Moon a mere 10 years later (take
> note of the rustic '60s hardware and the narrow window they
> shove anti-radiation shields

A few answers...
1) They did not spend "2 days" in the belts. They "rocketed through" at earth escape velocity.
2) You're talking about the radiation in space. The walls of the Apollo capsule cut down on the radiation passing through.
3) The flight path avoided the worst of the Van Allen belts (around earth's equator) by flying around it.

https://www.popsci.com/blog-ne...
> Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were
> exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average
> experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission
> who regularly deal with radioactive materials.

> and geostationary satellites, invented by *a science fiction author*, the famous Arthur C. Clarke

Get serious already.. Physics 101. Since the time of Sir Isaac Newton (and his formulation of the law of gravity). it has been known that a satellite (natural or artificial) at a specific distance above the equator would revolve around the earth synchronously with the earth's rotation. Arthur C. Clarke "invented" nothing. He merely wrote a sci-fi story about the (mis)use of such a satellite to broadcast porn

> remain fully functional for decades in the midst of the 2nd radiation belt at ~22000 miles of altitude.

It's called "hardened circuitry". Consumer grade electronixs would die in a few months. One reason satellites are so expensive is that their circuitry is hardened against radiation. It could be done for your laptop... if you were willing to pay $50,000 for it.

> What about constellations that haven't updated their shapes
> since the times of Ptolemy who himself, for his Almagest,
> relied on even older, by about 500 years, documents?

They *DO* change... ve-r-r-r-r-y slowly. Try 150,000 years... https://www.wired.com/2015/03/...

> * How is it that daylight opacifies the sky so that no *light emitting* star is to be seen from Earth

Sigh... it does no such thing. Starlight is *VERY* faint. Our eyes (and cameras) only have a small dynamic range between the dimmest object they can resolve while not getting blinded (cameras overexposed) by brighter objects or background. Have you ever been out in the countryside at night at new moon and seen The Milky Way? Try it at night from a city with streetlights present You'll have a hard time seeing any stars. The stars are just as bright during the day as they are at night.

BTW, same thing happened on the Moon (Apollo camera images) with no atmosphere. The reflected glare off the moon's surface drowns out the stars when photographing the rover, etc. However, pointing up at the sky would see stars if no reflacted glare off mountains, etc..

How is it easier or make more sense to have astronauts die on the Moon, rather than Mars?

Not really sure what you find confusing. It's a LOT easier to get astronauts to and from the moon alive. We already have life support systems that can deal with moon mission duration but not so much for Mars. Communications to the moon are a few seconds round trip. Mars communication averages around 27 minutes round trip. Regular resupply to the moon is feasible. Not so much to Mars. Rescue missions to the moon are feasible even if difficult. Far less so to Mars. We have no practical design for shielding against radiation on the trip to/from Mars or while there but that's not nearly as big an issue to/from/on the Moon. Landing on the moon is MUCH easier than on Mars because the martian atmosphere turns out to be a real pain - thick enough to be a hazard but too thin to be useful.

Neither place is a friendly warm place to visit but it's pretty obvious that the Moon is the easier trip of the two by a pretty wide margin if you care at all about bringing the astronauts back alive. I'd like to see us visit both but Mars is definitely the harder target of the two.

The only difference between having a human land on the Moon rather than Mars is that Mars has a slightly stronger gravity well, a sparse atmosphere, and it will take more time to send a manned craft to Mars rather than the Moon.

That is not even close to the only difference. That thin martian atmosphere is actually a huge problem for landing there. It's easier to land on Earth than on Mars because the atmosphere on Mars is thick enough to cause entry heating problems but too thin to provide much useful braking. And that time to get there is mostly time in deep space where radiation becomes a big problem for living beings if they aren't shielded and we currently have no practical shielding. That problem along with the substantial sum of money it would take to finance such a mission are the biggest hurdles to getting to Mars.

But humans have already landed on the Moon. There is nothing new to be learned engineering-wise by having a landing craft land on the Moon first.

Yes we've landed on the moon but claims that there is no more we can learn by going again are manifestly absurd. There is a ton of engineering and science we could learn by going again.

I have yet to read anyone who can explain how it will be safer or more rewarding to send humans back to the Moon.

The ways in which going to the Moon is safer are legion. Most of them have to do with the proximity to Earth and the advantages that affords. Frankly if we cannot handle a manned mission to the Moon, it's not at all clear how we would handle the more costly and challenging mission to Mars. That's not to say we shouldn't go to Mars but I think that particular journey is going to take a LOT longer to become a reality - predominately because of the life support systems we still have yet to develop.

They used to sell Thorium tonics as bottled sunshine

https://www.popsci.com/scitech...

Cow Farts contribute tons of methane into the atmosphere. https://www.popsci.com/cow-far... The other side sez: https://www.agweb.com/article/...

>"Given the ambiguous data, $289M seems excessive"

That is a huge understatement. There is no proof Roundup caused his cancer at all, or any human cancer for that matter. Just remember where this circus is- California.... where EVERYONE is a victim and EVERYTHING causes cancer, including coffee and, somehow, Christmas tree lights.

https://www.popsci.com/califor...
https://www.businessinsider.co...

German imports a lot of solar panels from China.
https://www.popsci.com/solar-p...

China is the largest source of imports to Germany.
https://tradingeconomics.com/g...

I really wonder why idiots on /. always claim such bullshit.

Yes, I wonder.

Seriously, now is the time for Robotics to be brought up to speed on separating goods. All metals are easy to take out but then you are still left with plastics, glass, and paper as well as items made from assortments of these (think TV). Robotics can solve a lot of this,with a bit of human labor to act on QA. BUT, what is important, is to keep the items HERE. We paid for the elements. Keep them here to produce with.

I have no idea why you think robots would be optimal here. Machines do a great job already.

Doing some modifications to this device could be a funny way to join the challenge...

De Beers has been working for years to develop techniques to identify lab made diamonds. It's extremely difficult as lab grown diamonds are identical to flawless diamonds.

It seems they are taking another route, predatory pricing.

I don't know how they've gotten away with such blatant market manipulation for so long.

No need, China has missiles that have more than twice that range.

https://www.popsci.com/how-la-...

there ya go.

Artificial intelligence already exists so how can you say it probably will never exist? You can buy artificial intelligence today for less than $50.
https://www.popsci.com/amazon-...

It's not "intelligence". Those are automatically generated control systems that don't understand what they are doing - i.e., not being intelligent. Claiming they are is like saying that I'm intelligent because I can walk. That's just neurons wired to do some processing, with no answers to why or even how.

Aliens were never a realistic thing to be afraid of for multiple logical reasons and AI will probably never exist, so that is also an unrealistic fear.

Zombies have a greater chance of destroying the world, but they just aren't that scary.

Artificial intelligence already exists so how can you say it probably will never exist? You can buy artificial intelligence today for less than $50. https://www.popsci.com/amazon-...

The ISS was only designed with a 15 year life expectancy. It is currently about 18 years old (some modules are older, some newer), and by 2025 it'll be 25 years old. NASA figures the absolute deadline is 2028. So 2025 is a good retirement date if you want a safety margin. It's commensurate with a previous NASA study which green-lighted keeping it operational until 2024.

Discussion should be focused on what comes next. Not on how to keep the ISS flying. The Space Shuttle was retired for the same reason - its components were designed with only a max 30 year lifespan in mind. Retrofitting it for longer service would've involved replacing all these parts. And if you're going to do that, you might as well design something completely new that takes advantage of new technology that's been developed in the previous 20+ years.

Funny, you accuse OP of omitting facts and provide none of your own. Creating a list of tests and saying they've been done without linking to any peer reviewed evidence is what we've been getting for years. I have seen research pointing the impact volcanoes and cow farts but nothing from the global warming crowd to back up their claims of humans being the cause. I do not deny climate change and if you show me evidence (You know that stuff science is based on) of humanities overall impact I will gladly capitulate. Until then sod off.

I think it's more accurate to say that not all plastic products can be economically recycled.

I did say exactly that. ("A depressing percentage of the plastic products sold cannot be economically recycled") We agree.

It isn't, for example, economical to recycle single-use plastic bags because they contain so little plastic that transporting them is likely to use more oil than you recover from the bags. And polystyrene is mostly air, which has the same problem. But that's really an issue with the way the plastics are used rather than something fundamental to the material.

Yep. I think this is going have to be something that gets regulated at some point. I don't like the idea of doing that but I don't see a feasible alternative. It's kind of a tragedy of the commons situation. It's cheap for us individually to use a disposable plastic fork but expensive for society in the long run thanks to the pollution and wasted energy.

I think the arguments that we're going to be mining trash heaps in the future for plastic are preposterous. There are FAR too many hydrocarbons yet to be mined to make digging up trash heaps economically viable. It's simply likely to remain cheaper to make new plastic from fresh fossil fuels. Even if we somehow run out of oil, gas and coal without rendering the planet uninhabitable in the process, there are bioplastics. I think the difficult bit will be to keep people from making fresh plastic (esp one use) when we do not need to. Perhaps more pressing will be solving the problem of microbeads and similar plastic waste.

The only one I'm aware of that would truly be uneconomical because of the nature of the material is PVC, and even that is improving, I think.

PVC can be recycled for the most part.

Don't be so sure

As soon as a humanoid robot is perfected, the only value people will have is knowing where the aim points are.

What you inhale second hand is incredibly minimal. You might as well ban cars from driving near areas where people walk at this point because I guarantee you that walking along New York streets and breathing the air polluted from all the traffic is far more unhealthy for you than breathing vape fumes. https://www.popsci.com/ask-us-...

On top of that, almost no one becomes addicted to second hand smoke of any kind, least of all from a vape (disagree? show me an example beyond singular anecdotal experience). You're being a stupid paranoid.

There was a college experiment several years ago where people put on masks, some of which then messing with the crows. It became clear that they remember faces. https://www.popsci.com/science...

That wasn't the salient point of the experiment. The salient point was that the people with the masks only messed with the parents, making very sure never to be seen by the offspring, and yet the offspring reacted to the masks a whole lot more than average crows.

There was a college experiment several years ago where people put on masks, some of which then messing with the crows. It became clear that they remember faces. https://www.popsci.com/science...

Again: only true if you ignore the one that blew up on the pad

You mean "the one that was blown up on the pad by improper handling"?

Blown up on the bad by a failed helium tank strut. If there was improper handling somewhere, so far nobody has identified that as the problem.

But I'm not sure what your point is. All accidents have causes, which I suppose ultimately comes down to somebody doing something improper. It's still a failure.

That's like blaming cars for crashes caused by amateur drivers.

Or blaming SpaceX for explosions caused by amateur rocket engineers?

They learn from their failure. It's a very effective way to learn, and I approve of the fact that they do learn, and keep on going. Nevertheless, it's a failure.

Tesla is able to get only 5% decrease in capacity over 1200 cycles

You can get figures like that if you use very shallow depth of discharge. Say, 10%. The drawback of course is you then need to buy a battery whose capacity is 10x greater than the max charge you plan to regularly use, thus driving up cost 10x. Which is pretty substantial when the battery is already the most expensive part of your system.

The problem is due to the physical distortion of the battery as it's charged. The greater the cycle depth, the greater the distortion, and the more quickly it wears out.

First, thank you for your well reasoned response - there are too few people on /. who even try.

The scary part is they might be trying! But you're welcome

I but from what I read, there is a lot of research into things like organ replacement (by growing new organs from a person's own stemcells)

The business of reducing an organ to it's connective tissue "scaffolding" and regrowing healthy organ tissue on it is pretty compelling. http://www.popsci.com/scientis... This is nothing short of amazing. Imagine if they could take a heart attack victim and using their own cells, grow a new heart. The same with other organs.

The interesting thing is that if it becomes easy and or quick, the process might be expanded to very early stage heart or other organ issues.

My fear of a very healthy person becoming demented still makes me cautious. I'll note that Alzheimer's will eventually deteriorate the brain enough to cause organ failure. But even then the heart of a ten year old in the body of an Alzheimer's patient will probably last a lot longer than their old worn out heart.

There is an Outer Space Treaty that prohibits "weapons of mass destruction" in space. So, no nukes. However, kinetic bombardment weapons have been in development for some time now. The current "testing platforms" are terrestrial tungsten rod rail gun designs for the Navy and Air Force. Theoretically, the slugs used in these could be used from orbit too. /.'s favorite defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton apparently discussed some KEP stuff at their 2017 Directed Energy Summit; but that website is (of course) lacking any real information on that (or any, really) subject.

“We did this calculation; if all the ice in the world melted—Greenland, Arctic, Antarctic, everything—and then we had the world's largest recorded tsunami right in front of the seed vault. So, very high sea levels and the worlds largest Tsunami. What would happen to the seed vault?” Fowler says. “We found that the seed vault was somewhere between a five and seven story building above that point. It might not help the road leading up to the seed vault, but the seeds themselves would be ok."

http://www.popsci.com/seed-vau...

The designers knew the difference between "hottest year ever _recorded_" (that is, within the last few hundred years) and the hottest years _ever_. The arctic has been a lot warmer than now during _this_ interglacial (source: Marcott et.al 2013) - not to mention the previous interglacial, the Eemian.

His rule is only one single task item allowed in the kitchen: the fire extinguisher.

Not even that. He used the fire extinguisher to make a desert.

I don't actually agree with Alton on this as a hard and fast rule even though I used it as an example. It's a good principle but there are sometimes good reasons to own and use a special purpose tool. Special tools are indicated when they save substantial labor and/or do a substantially better job than a more general purpose tool. For example I own a mandoline in addition to my knives. My knives are more general purpose tools and can do everything the mandoline can do and then some, but for some tasks the mandoline is SO much faster and accurate that it easily justifies me owning one even though I don't use it often.

Same deal with programming languages. Use the best general purpose language you can get away with and only bring in specialty languages if the net benefit to doing so is substantial either in time saved or quality of results. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good in search of marginal improvements that will probably cost more than the benefit received.

Is there a degree program, or other paths to skill and knowledge, for a programmer who's convinced that "AI is today what the web was in 1993"?

Well you have to be smart enough to earn one or more PhDs. Someone who believes that is probably not going to be able to do that, but if he tries he will probably quickly learn what a stupid idea it was. Hopefully he will still decide to get his PhD though. We can always use more AI researchers. Although dumb ones are less valuable you never know who might get lucky and stumble upon some cool breakthrough.

The first point is that the only example we have of intelligence is intimately tied to life and can only really be viewed as an aspect of that and the idea that intelligence can be separated from life or at least some form of artificial life is speculative at best. As someone who was quite interested in a career in AI research back in the 80s and has been following the feeble creep of its progress since then I am convinced that wetware is going to be the real future and not so much neural net ASICs like Google's TPU or whatever Nvidia is working on to run neural network architecture which although useful is I think not going to be the foundation for real AI that can give a nice robot chassis like Boston Dynamic's Atlas some level of general intelligence or common sense.

Think of something more like putting a rat/pig/monkey brain into an Atlas Robot. That is figuring out how to digitally interface with a brain-in-jar and train it directly as if it were a complete living animal. Even a rat brain is a far more sophisticated neural network machine than anything we will probably build from scratch in the next few hundred years.

Current neural network architectures are based on a highly simplified model of how real brains actually work. We still really don't know how real brains work. There are projects like The Allen Brain Atlas, The Human Connectome Project, The Brain Activity Map, or whatever Henry Markram is currently up to. There is an interesting Wired article about him that you should read. Maybe consider pursuing a career path like his.

I'd also suggest maybe thinking in at least as much in terms of DNA programming as CPU or GPU programming via Synthetic Biology and follow a career more like Craig Venter who famously made his own artificial bacteria or rather wrote the DNA and inserted it into an empty host cell. That's just a small start of course but it may eventually lead to being able to build artificial life forms that we can make intelligent just by giving them a large enough brain or encephalization quotient. Ultimately even an Atlas Robot with something like an Nvidia P100 cluster running deep learning style neural nets is a kind of very primitive life form. Going fully wet and nano is just another way to attack the same problem in a more integrated fashion: the way I think a far more advanced civ tech would do it.

I guess you should really think in terms of which vision of AI you want to follow or place your bets on. Silicon based connectionism is in vogue at the moment and I think that is great because a lot of progress was lost back in the 80s when it was considered a dead end. It is certainly a more powerful and promising approach than trying to hand code intelligence into a piece of software, but I still think we are just nipping at the heels of an even better approach: biology. Ultimately we are copying the only machine in existence that can create intelligence and that is the

what abort chain of custody / forensics issues? The defense has the right to know and they have the right to do there own forensics work with there own lab.

Under reasonable doubt I can say

Who knows if that porn came form other infected systems on the Geek Squad network (I head that they outscored some of the clean up of systems to remote places)

What if an Geek Squad worker has an infected usb disk that just copy's stuff system to system? some workers have copied stuff from people systems for there own use.

what if was just in the browser cache??
http://www.popsci.com/technolo...
http://gizmodo.com/5099383/pop...

“Flooding is probably not quite the right word to use in this case,” says Cary Fowler, who helped create the seed vault. “In my experience, there’s been water intrusion at the front of the tunnel every single year.” http://www.popsci.com/seed-vau...

This is an annual occurrence , as explained by one of the creators of the vault:

“Flooding is probably not quite the right word to use in this case,” says Cary Fowler, who helped create the seed vault. “In my experience, there’s been water intrusion at the front of the tunnel every single year.”

Fowler wasn't at the seed vault this year when the flooding (or 'flooding') in question took place, but has extensive knowledge of the project and facilities. He explains that a 100 meter long tunnel leads into the heart of the mountain where the seed vault is stored, running at a slight downward slope. At the base of the slope are two pumping stations to remove any water that might get in. Then there's a slight uphill section before you reach the doors to the vault itself, where the seeds are kept at 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit or -18 Celsius.

“The tunnel was never meant to be water tight at the front, because we didn’t think we would need that,” Fowler says. “What happens is, in the summer the permafrost melts, and some water comes in, and when it comes in, it freezes. It doesn’t typically go very far.”

“We did this calculation; if all the ice in the world melted—Greenland, Arctic, Antarctic, everything—and then we had the world's largest recorded tsunami right in front of the seed vault. So, very high sea levels and the worlds largest Tsunami. What would happen to the seed vault?” Fowler says. “We found that the seed vault was somewhere between a five and seven story building above that point. It might not help the road leading up to the seed vault, but the seeds themselves would be ok."

http://www.popsci.com/seed-vau...

Which prompts a very big question about how the Xiaomi Mix isn't prior art for the edge-to-edge screen patent. What the heck, guys?

I'll just drop this in here and hope you educate yourself.
http://www.popsci.com/science/...

I'm fairly sure a quad-copter (or even an octo-copter) would be unable to fly in weightlessness conditions aboard the International Space Station

I'm fairly sure it wouldn't. Why did you think it would?

18-25 years of financial drain, emotional stress, and missing free time, MIGHT lead to an end-of-life benefit of ~2 year extension.

That's not really what it's about, but to each their own.

I don't regret having my son at all...he's grown up to be a good person and I'm proud of who he's become. .

Of course you don't regret having your song. Having a child alters your neurological pathways to become more nurturing, which is how the human race continues. There's an ample body of work out there on it. If I'd had kids, I have no doubt that the same biological changes would have affected me and made me strive to raise my child well. But I didn't - and am financially, emotionally, and free-time(ly) glad that I didn't.

http://www.iflscience.com/brai...
http://www.popsci.com/pregnanc...

But won't shill trolls be replaced by AI even sooner?

They already have. The most prolific one on slashdot goes by the nym "Anonymous Coward." There are ongoing bot wars on twitter, facebook, and even wikipedia.

Please explain how one publishes scientific information without publishing documents?

You hand it to a politician, who yellow lines the parts that do not align with party policy You remove the parts that are not true because the truth has been set by party policy, and if the politician ends up finding the now policy confirming paper acceptable, it gets published.

I have a strong suspicion that in science departments all over the country, that they are making backups to be hidden from the new age of alternative truth we have entered. Kind of like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault for science data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

Because this too shall pass. Ages of alternative facts come and go. Ages of politics determining the laws of physics will come and go. We don't hear much of Lysenkoism these days, though it was once official Soviet Union policy.

I suspect that at this time that physics will be ignored and all research into the greenhouse effect will be suppressed, that creationism will rear it's head again, and a lot of heath science will be suppressed as well.

And? Well these are the times we live in. Scientists are a different breed. An example is in WW2, oddly enough - in Leningrad - 12 scientists chose to slowly starve to death rather than eat the seeds of their seed bank. http://www.popsci.com/science/...

All in all, if The new Politicians see fit to kill me for my views on physics, if the greenhouse effect and my support of it, or any of my other science views that have been banned by policy make me too dangerous to allow to live - then I shall die. Hopefully they are smart enough to know that suppression and killing tend to make truth stronger than policy. I have my grave doubts though.

Because all of this shall pass.

It is not likely that the data would become tained. More likely the new administration would just stop collecting inconvenient data,

It looks like it's already begun. Government scientists have just been barred from sharing publicly funded science.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/fyi-can-acid-trip-really-give-you-flashbacks/

Look, a solar panel never makes in it's usable life the amount of energy it takes to produce

That hasn't been true for several years now. By 2020 it's estimated that solar panels will pay back all the energy they've ever taken to manufacture all of them.

the same with wind power.

Wrong again. Did you actually bother to research any of this? 20 Seconds on Google would have corrected your false assertions.

A coal plant returns the power it took to build with all parts in less than a month.

At the cost of dumping massive amounts of pollutants (including CO2) into the atmosphere for decades. When coal actually has to pay for the full energy (and financial) cost of mitigating the pollution it costs then you might have a fair comparison.

Many reported that Dr Mao was successful in growing teeth back in 2010.

http://www.rexresearch.com/mao...
http://www.popsci.com/science/...
https://www.davidwolfe.com/ste...
http://www.dentistryiq.com/art...

Interesting, the original press release ( http://cumc.columbia.edu/news/... ) has been scrubbed from the university site.

Until the leap-year bug hits, and we have a bunch of organ donors all at once, right?

Seriously though, we're closer to lab-grown organs than we are to self-driving cars. This is a problem that is (fortunately) well on the way to being solved.

Actually launching and retrieving flying vehiclies from massive airships is nothing new. the US Akron and US Macon were blimp aircraft carriers carring multiple planes able to both launch and retrieve.

http://www.airships.net/us-nav...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.history.com/topics/...

the russians even built planes that other planes could launch from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

and Darpa still wants these:
http://www.popsci.com/article/...

and both the russians and Lockeed developed concept aircraft based on nuclear powered super planes with runways built into them:
https://forums.spacebattles.co...
russina surface effects nuclear powered sea skimmer concept:
http://englishrussia.com/2015/...