Good point. I suppose oxygen in an atmosphere isn't a dead lock that there's life there, although it wags its finger very suggestively.
If we do find free oxygen in an atmosphere, though, you can bet all eyes will be trained on that planet. What kind of technology would be required to confirm the presence of life visually? Obviously radio signals or something like that would be a clincher, but suppose the life there is non-technological. Could we ever "verify" that there was life on that planet without going there or sending a probe (which is currently not feasible)?
These planets are directly observable with current technology. Within 10 years, one would imagine that smaller, nearer-to-the-star planets will be directly viewed...perhaps even spectroscopy on the planet's atmosphere will be possible. The James Webb telescope might be able to do some of this as soon as 2017.
That said, will we see strong evidence for life on another world soon? My guess is that an atmosphere with gases that simply don't belong there in large quantities (dimethyl sulfide, free oxygen, etc.) will be found sooner rather than later...and that will more or less wrap it up.
TI36 solar is an excellent choice. All the functionality with very little extra. Look for a model that has the scientific notation button (EE) as the primary function. Some have it this way, while most have it as a second function. If you use this a lot, and I suspect you do, you'll find it much more convenient to not constantly push the 2nd button.
...I know, I know...tsunamis and typhoons don't cause much damage 12 miles from shore. But still, doesn't this seem like a somewhat poor location for a floating wind turbine? It's not anchored to the seafloor, which means that typhoons and storms could push it close to shore, and we've seen the kind of debris that can be produced by a tsunami.
Japan may not have a lot of power options, but it seems like this might not be the best choice...
I read this essentially as saying that without an observer, time does not exist. Essentially, a "god-like" observer does not observe any change unless he or she becomes entangled in the universe he or she is observing. That universe, therefore, is without change, and therefore timeless. However, observers that are entangled within the universe (as we are), observe change and thus the universe (to them) has time.
This sounds a fair bit like some of the effects of relativity (on the train the shots appear simultaneous...on the ground they do not).
What is most intriguing to me, though, is that if the universe is both timeless (from the outside) and has time (from the inside), is it possible for us to gain the outside perspective (or any information about that timeless perspective). This shouldn't necessarily be impossible - we would need to not become entangled in the thing we are trying to observe (which we can easily do). Perhaps observing the surrounding universe would give unentangled information about the experiment in question, and thus give us a glimpse of the future?
It seems that nearly every week there is an example of a new solar system with somewhat similar characteristics to our own. We've seen large planets, rocky planets, and now asteroids with high water content.
In 1995 my physics teacher told me we'd never have direct evidence of extrasolar worlds. Now I tell my physics students that I wouldn't be surprised if we found evidence of extrasolar life (probably in the form of a planet with a high concentration of oxygen in its atmosphere).
It's a great time to be alive and to be a scientist!
Further down someone mentioned Enceladus. That's a pretty good example, but I would argue that's not snow so much as volcanic (geyseric?) fallout. Not really atmospheric precipitation in the general sense.
Titan also appears to have snow and rain, though we haven't really seen it fall (though not for lack of trying).
Interestingly, on all of these worlds the substance being "snowed" is different. Water on Earth, Carbon Dioxide on Mars, Methane on Titan, and potentially Nitrogen on Pluto. I love science.
This should be a mission of the Library of Congress - to archive everything ever used by the government (including court cases), be it on the Internet or not.
While they're at it, they can probably archive nearly everything else.
Security issues aside, wireless connectivity uses some small amount of power. To me this is energy wasting of the highest order. My lightbulbs constantly listening for the one time per month that maybe I want to turn them on from my phone? Yes please and a side of mountain top removal coal mining please!
This was exactly what I was thinking. I hear this all the time as "Animals and Insects". And then I find myself yelling at the TV: "They are multicellular mobile heterotrophs!"
Human-powered flight is unlikely to ever be a real player (look how hard he has to pedal just to stay 10 feet off the ground for a minute!)
However, the engineering and material science that was used to make this possible could easily translate into lighter helicopters, electric vehicles, drones, you name it.
Just as flying solo across the Atlantic wasn't really something anybody did much after Lindbergh, neither will anybody do much human helicoptering (?) But the fact that it can be done will help humanity long term. Well done!
The article says that the battery delivers about half of the voltage of a typical lithium ion battery (which is usually around 3.7V).
So 1.2Ah/g * 1.85V = 2.22Wh/g
Your battery is 30Ah/20 pounds * 12V = 18Wh/lb =.04Wh/g
So yes, this new battery is extremely energy dense. If you needed it to be 12V, though, you'd have to wire them in a series of 6, which would reduce the energy density by a factor of 6. Still a big improvement, but more like.35 Wh/g @ 12V, which is about 9 times better than your camping battery. Not bad.
Absolutely correct. What is needed here is a real power benchmark. A numerical score that incorporates weight, screen size, performance, and battery life. Perhaps something as simple as:
Doubling the weight to double the battery time would result in no net gain under this kind of formula. However, using a more efficient battery or optimizing the computer to use the battery time better would result in higher scores.
It may seem wasteful, but it is in the best interest of scientific literacy in general to debunk this sort of thing. If cold fusion is real (highly unlikely) it will stand up to all the scrutiny that science can throw at it. If it is not, then scientists will debunk it rather quickly and we can move on to the next snake oil crackpot idea.
I hate to break it to you, but the Kyoto Accord is based on science, whether you like that science or not. This is exactly the point: you don't like the science, and neither do most conservatives, because it indicates that a BIG business (fossil fuel based energy) is bad. Since those businesses have a fair amount of money, the Kyoto Accord is pretty anti-fossil fuel business.
Despite that fact, it is still based on valid science.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, Dice...you lost a loyal reader.
soylentnews.org
Oh, and for the last time: BUCK FETA.
Good point. I suppose oxygen in an atmosphere isn't a dead lock that there's life there, although it wags its finger very suggestively.
If we do find free oxygen in an atmosphere, though, you can bet all eyes will be trained on that planet. What kind of technology would be required to confirm the presence of life visually? Obviously radio signals or something like that would be a clincher, but suppose the life there is non-technological. Could we ever "verify" that there was life on that planet without going there or sending a probe (which is currently not feasible)?
These planets are directly observable with current technology. Within 10 years, one would imagine that smaller, nearer-to-the-star planets will be directly viewed...perhaps even spectroscopy on the planet's atmosphere will be possible. The James Webb telescope might be able to do some of this as soon as 2017.
That said, will we see strong evidence for life on another world soon? My guess is that an atmosphere with gases that simply don't belong there in large quantities (dimethyl sulfide, free oxygen, etc.) will be found sooner rather than later...and that will more or less wrap it up.
Next year or so 100GB phones will be commonplace...and you will have your Hitchhiker's Guide.
Truly amazing times we live in.
TI36 solar is an excellent choice. All the functionality with very little extra. Look for a model that has the scientific notation button (EE) as the primary function. Some have it this way, while most have it as a second function. If you use this a lot, and I suspect you do, you'll find it much more convenient to not constantly push the 2nd button.
...I know, I know...tsunamis and typhoons don't cause much damage 12 miles from shore. But still, doesn't this seem like a somewhat poor location for a floating wind turbine? It's not anchored to the seafloor, which means that typhoons and storms could push it close to shore, and we've seen the kind of debris that can be produced by a tsunami.
Japan may not have a lot of power options, but it seems like this might not be the best choice...
Dinosaurs and mammals were about the same size? Didn't you just get done telling us that dinosaurs were much larger than mammals just 2 sentences ago?
Sheesh. What journal was this published in again? The Bible?
I read this essentially as saying that without an observer, time does not exist. Essentially, a "god-like" observer does not observe any change unless he or she becomes entangled in the universe he or she is observing. That universe, therefore, is without change, and therefore timeless. However, observers that are entangled within the universe (as we are), observe change and thus the universe (to them) has time.
This sounds a fair bit like some of the effects of relativity (on the train the shots appear simultaneous...on the ground they do not).
What is most intriguing to me, though, is that if the universe is both timeless (from the outside) and has time (from the inside), is it possible for us to gain the outside perspective (or any information about that timeless perspective). This shouldn't necessarily be impossible - we would need to not become entangled in the thing we are trying to observe (which we can easily do). Perhaps observing the surrounding universe would give unentangled information about the experiment in question, and thus give us a glimpse of the future?
It seems that nearly every week there is an example of a new solar system with somewhat similar characteristics to our own. We've seen large planets, rocky planets, and now asteroids with high water content.
In 1995 my physics teacher told me we'd never have direct evidence of extrasolar worlds. Now I tell my physics students that I wouldn't be surprised if we found evidence of extrasolar life (probably in the form of a planet with a high concentration of oxygen in its atmosphere).
It's a great time to be alive and to be a scientist!
Yes, but have we seen it snowING?
Further down someone mentioned Enceladus. That's a pretty good example, but I would argue that's not snow so much as volcanic (geyseric?) fallout. Not really atmospheric precipitation in the general sense.
Titan also appears to have snow and rain, though we haven't really seen it fall (though not for lack of trying).
Interestingly, on all of these worlds the substance being "snowed" is different. Water on Earth, Carbon Dioxide on Mars, Methane on Titan, and potentially Nitrogen on Pluto. I love science.
Damn you autocorrect. Meant NH - New Horizons.
It will be interesting to see if DH spots any snow...so far as I know we haven't spotted active snowing on any body other than Earth.
This should be a mission of the Library of Congress - to archive everything ever used by the government (including court cases), be it on the Internet or not.
While they're at it, they can probably archive nearly everything else.
... for a significant reduction in speed?
No thanks.
But is it news for nerds? Really? Do you really think most of these comments are not sarcastic?
...graphene saves the world, creates amazing superproducts, and almost defies the laws of physics.
Cynicism aside, the research is exciting, but it's not likely to bear fruit any time soon.
Security issues aside, wireless connectivity uses some small amount of power. To me this is energy wasting of the highest order. My lightbulbs constantly listening for the one time per month that maybe I want to turn them on from my phone? Yes please and a side of mountain top removal coal mining please!
This was exactly what I was thinking. I hear this all the time as "Animals and Insects". And then I find myself yelling at the TV: "They are multicellular mobile heterotrophs!"
And then I remember what a sad sad nerd I am.
Human-powered flight is unlikely to ever be a real player (look how hard he has to pedal just to stay 10 feet off the ground for a minute!)
However, the engineering and material science that was used to make this possible could easily translate into lighter helicopters, electric vehicles, drones, you name it.
Just as flying solo across the Atlantic wasn't really something anybody did much after Lindbergh, neither will anybody do much human helicoptering (?) But the fact that it can be done will help humanity long term. Well done!
+100 to this.
I spent hours trying to track down the cause of my laptop being a fusion reactor on my lap. I can't WAIT to see if this works.
The article says that the battery delivers about half of the voltage of a typical lithium ion battery (which is usually around 3.7V).
.04Wh/g
.35 Wh/g @ 12V, which is about 9 times better than your camping battery. Not bad.
So 1.2Ah/g * 1.85V = 2.22Wh/g
Your battery is 30Ah/20 pounds * 12V = 18Wh/lb =
So yes, this new battery is extremely energy dense. If you needed it to be 12V, though, you'd have to wire them in a series of 6, which would reduce the energy density by a factor of 6. Still a big improvement, but more like
Absolutely correct. What is needed here is a real power benchmark. A numerical score that incorporates weight, screen size, performance, and battery life. Perhaps something as simple as:
Score = Battery Time * Screen Size * Performance Benchmark Score / Weight
Doubling the weight to double the battery time would result in no net gain under this kind of formula. However, using a more efficient battery or optimizing the computer to use the battery time better would result in higher scores.
Until China starts to face real responses?
It may seem wasteful, but it is in the best interest of scientific literacy in general to debunk this sort of thing. If cold fusion is real (highly unlikely) it will stand up to all the scrutiny that science can throw at it. If it is not, then scientists will debunk it rather quickly and we can move on to the next snake oil crackpot idea.
You must be a conservative.
I hate to break it to you, but the Kyoto Accord is based on science, whether you like that science or not. This is exactly the point: you don't like the science, and neither do most conservatives, because it indicates that a BIG business (fossil fuel based energy) is bad. Since those businesses have a fair amount of money, the Kyoto Accord is pretty anti-fossil fuel business.
Despite that fact, it is still based on valid science.