Well it's nice to have just a bit more backup. Break out the quote about science being mostly boring except on occasion when something new is discovered. Which is not always a goal but sometimes a side affect.
No you may just parse your visual data into sub blocks and use smaller sections to detect movement. A little like an advanced algorithm so your brain is not continually overloaded by the whole picture moving. It's probably why you can spot the mice.
It's been established by many reputable parties during the 50's - 70's or maybe even as late as the 80's (depending on whether you want to delve into conspiracy or not). That nuking our upper atmosphere is bad (TM).
I do not endorse it.
Van Allen Belts being #1 on the list. Power outages being #2. Those are not science fiction and do not require "Atomic Fire".
If it needs to do something critical or troubleshoot something make it easy and obvious to take the appropriate steps. Don't obfuscate controls or code.
The only reason you might want to tone down these things is if it makes the software too complex by overwhelming a user with options. Even then it should still be easy to get the more advanced functionality.
This is my number one pet peeve with software. Windows included. The network dialog for wireless connections gives back no sane feedback unless you click through 4 or 5 dialogs. Because Microsoft believes "You do not need that information". Well how else am I to figure out what my NIC is doing?
Anyway. The more deep and open your softwares interface is. The better it will be.
Except it's much more feasible to get people to pay 100$ a month vs 1000$ investment yearly for a new Mr Fusion box.
Numbers pulled out of my ass. But I could see this being a problem. Especially if its already getting criticized heavily by the patent office and scientific community. Or is widely misunderstood or not understood at all.
I agree in theory this is how it should work. I suspect that Rossi's machine has flaws. If indeed the patent office will grant a patent on those grounds. Then this leaves the realm of the political and dives into the realm of the stubborn or hoax.
The cost of building and maintaining a sailing vessel that is wind powered is not all that terribly steep.
Yet it's useless to you if you cannot sail it into a port. You can't survive on fish alone. And all of the oceans aren't full of kelp everywhere for you to get that as an alternative source of nutrition. Also not sure if kelp and fish are enough either.
Basically free and ubiquitous energy is nice and all. But we still have to overcome our current human limitations in order to share them without the same level of oppression and tyranny.
What happens when some fundamentalist regime decides they want to impose their will and now have lots of energy to do so. I'm going to postulate that an unlimited China would perhaps be a dangerous thing to unleash on the world. I love the Chinese people. But not their current political system or their level of freedom. I will say that most would probably willingly be the unwitting members of a machine that could reshape the face of the earth. The same goes for people in the U.S. who are loosing touch with their own humanity and hiding behind their iphones.
So if you were being denied patents on scientific grounds you would give your "magical" discovery away to people who may or may not steal it and sell it.
And if one of these got into the hands of a big corp like Sears, or one of the Nuclear power corps. And they did some hand wavy science and bribery and now your invention which may or may not work is no longer yours?
This has actually happened before were inventions have been stolen because of issues getting patents in certain jurisdictions and the science being bad or untenable, but later on being feasible, or different science.
So were handing out people patents because they are good scientists not good inventors.
I think they should keep working on making a good demo in house while coming up with a way to get it patented if they want the due proper rewards for it. Even if they gave it away completely for free they would most likely end up screwed because if it did work, someone with the money and power would patent it and make a billion bucks off their invention.
This here is the biggest flaw in our system. Who gets to patent what first.
I think in the most simple terms the experiment went like this:
Particle A set was measured having a statistically consistent result, particle set B was not measured. Particle set A was measured again. Particle set B was measured for the first time and had a different result then particle set A.
They postulated that performing the measurement #2 is what caused A's measurement to be consistent.
The interesting bit of the experiment was how they were measuring particles. However I can't explain it.
In other words IANAPhysiscist and you should take what I am saying here with a grain of lots of error inducing salt.
Because the information needed to test the entanglement requires conventional transmission. There is no way to prove the postulated quantum teleportation of the information. Or both particles need to be created under lab like perfect conditions and moved apart. Which won't happen faster then relativistic speeds. Therefore we observe no breaking of causality.
I think a few people have claimed causality breaking on occasion but the general scientific consensus is that isn't what is happening. There was a much more interesting experiment out of Los Alamos which I do not remember where they tested causality in time in a fairly robust way that leads me to believe it may be possible. But I cannot remember and cite it =/. It was also backed by the Chinese in a later experiment. But they have been getting a lot of raft for bad science and research lately.
Also your body secrets that K-40 quickly while the other elements could clog up in the system and remain over time. Though I imagine most would just go through the gastrointestinal tract without getting absorbed.
I hate to break this to you but people had very distinct eating habits based on where they lived and what season it was.
Most hunter gatherer's ate whatever they could easily collect. That goes for the ones that still exist today. It boiled down to what was least amount of effort.
Most of that time that was nuts, berries, roots, just about anything that a people could recognize as not gonna kill you off.
In colder regions though, people needed lots of fat to survive.
Not all animals would charge, especially after being wounded. Not going to say that I would test my theory on a moose or a buffallo. But you can spear a dear (tehee) with some reliability and watch them run as they bleed out if you hit something good.
I wonder if it's far enough to get out of the earths magnetosphere. By the way if they didn't mention problems with the experiment its probably safe to assume everything went up and operated fine. Don't know till someone releases a paper in a journal though.
I would wager bone loss in the mammals and weightlessness are the biggest contributing factors to death/disease. It could have been something else like mice getting upset and turning on each other because of their environment. Even simple non aggressive animals like frogs can become aggressive due to boredom and environmental reasons.
Perhaps a lower metabolism benefited the lizards/newts. Time to RTFA =)
I've had mixed results with Borax, but thats not boric acid. It works good in clean closets indoors where sometimes the ants will crawl in and try to nest to keep warm. It doesn't work if a real good food source is near though. Like garbage or a pantry.
Slashdot Mirror
The new PowerVR SGX530 drivers are non-existent for Linux. Totally dependent on DRM
Sorry, I just had to =/
Well it's nice to have just a bit more backup. Break out the quote about science being mostly boring except on occasion when something new is discovered. Which is not always a goal but sometimes a side affect.
Lol nice quote. Not going to happen ;)
No you may just parse your visual data into sub blocks and use smaller sections to detect movement. A little like an advanced algorithm so your brain is not continually overloaded by the whole picture moving. It's probably why you can spot the mice.
It's been established by many reputable parties during the 50's - 70's or maybe even as late as the 80's (depending on whether you want to delve into conspiracy or not). That nuking our upper atmosphere is bad (TM).
I do not endorse it.
Van Allen Belts being #1 on the list. Power outages being #2. Those are not science fiction and do not require "Atomic Fire".
If it needs to do something critical or troubleshoot something make it easy and obvious to take the appropriate steps. Don't obfuscate controls or code.
The only reason you might want to tone down these things is if it makes the software too complex by overwhelming a user with options. Even then it should still be easy to get the more advanced functionality.
This is my number one pet peeve with software. Windows included. The network dialog for wireless connections gives back no sane feedback unless you click through 4 or 5 dialogs. Because Microsoft believes "You do not need that information". Well how else am I to figure out what my NIC is doing?
Anyway. The more deep and open your softwares interface is. The better it will be.
Geico. Space Insurance.
Less bright LEDs? I disable all mine or dim them as much as I can. I don't like my vision being strained by random bright sources of blinking light.
I don't understand why my speakers have a brilliant blue led light that is 3x brighter than anything and I can read by it.
Except it's much more feasible to get people to pay 100$ a month vs 1000$ investment yearly for a new Mr Fusion box.
Numbers pulled out of my ass. But I could see this being a problem. Especially if its already getting criticized heavily by the patent office and scientific community. Or is widely misunderstood or not understood at all.
I agree in theory this is how it should work. I suspect that Rossi's machine has flaws. If indeed the patent office will grant a patent on those grounds. Then this leaves the realm of the political and dives into the realm of the stubborn or hoax.
The cost of building and maintaining a sailing vessel that is wind powered is not all that terribly steep.
Yet it's useless to you if you cannot sail it into a port. You can't survive on fish alone. And all of the oceans aren't full of kelp everywhere for you to get that as an alternative source of nutrition. Also not sure if kelp and fish are enough either.
Basically free and ubiquitous energy is nice and all. But we still have to overcome our current human limitations in order to share them without the same level of oppression and tyranny.
What happens when some fundamentalist regime decides they want to impose their will and now have lots of energy to do so. I'm going to postulate that an unlimited China would perhaps be a dangerous thing to unleash on the world. I love the Chinese people. But not their current political system or their level of freedom. I will say that most would probably willingly be the unwitting members of a machine that could reshape the face of the earth. The same goes for people in the U.S. who are loosing touch with their own humanity and hiding behind their iphones.
So if you were being denied patents on scientific grounds you would give your "magical" discovery away to people who may or may not steal it and sell it.
And if one of these got into the hands of a big corp like Sears, or one of the Nuclear power corps. And they did some hand wavy science and bribery and now your invention which may or may not work is no longer yours?
This has actually happened before were inventions have been stolen because of issues getting patents in certain jurisdictions and the science being bad or untenable, but later on being feasible, or different science.
So were handing out people patents because they are good scientists not good inventors.
I think they should keep working on making a good demo in house while coming up with a way to get it patented if they want the due proper rewards for it. Even if they gave it away completely for free they would most likely end up screwed because if it did work, someone with the money and power would patent it and make a billion bucks off their invention.
This here is the biggest flaw in our system. Who gets to patent what first.
I think in the most simple terms the experiment went like this:
Particle A set was measured having a statistically consistent result, particle set B was not measured.
Particle set A was measured again.
Particle set B was measured for the first time and had a different result then particle set A.
They postulated that performing the measurement #2 is what caused A's measurement to be consistent.
The interesting bit of the experiment was how they were measuring particles. However I can't explain it.
In other words IANAPhysiscist and you should take what I am saying here with a grain of lots of error inducing salt.
Because the information needed to test the entanglement requires conventional transmission. There is no way to prove the postulated quantum teleportation of the information. Or both particles need to be created under lab like perfect conditions and moved apart. Which won't happen faster then relativistic speeds. Therefore we observe no breaking of causality.
I think a few people have claimed causality breaking on occasion but the general scientific consensus is that isn't what is happening. There was a much more interesting experiment out of Los Alamos which I do not remember where they tested causality in time in a fairly robust way that leads me to believe it may be possible. But I cannot remember and cite it =/. It was also backed by the Chinese in a later experiment. But they have been getting a lot of raft for bad science and research lately.
Also your body secrets that K-40 quickly while the other elements could clog up in the system and remain over time. Though I imagine most would just go through the gastrointestinal tract without getting absorbed.
Simply put any math we use only defines a simulation. You only get real when you observe things. Which QM takes extreme issue with =p
One is a bunch of mathematical equations modeling a universe.
Math is not real. The models are not real. They are virtual.
Not saying that quantum mechanics doesn't have some robust models. But it is not "real" in an empirical sense. It is also not complete.
And most likely full of spin, error, omission, or propaganda... lol
I hate to break this to you but people had very distinct eating habits based on where they lived and what season it was.
Most hunter gatherer's ate whatever they could easily collect. That goes for the ones that still exist today. It boiled down to what was least amount of effort.
Most of that time that was nuts, berries, roots, just about anything that a people could recognize as not gonna kill you off.
In colder regions though, people needed lots of fat to survive.
Not all animals would charge, especially after being wounded. Not going to say that I would test my theory on a moose or a buffallo. But you can spear a dear (tehee) with some reliability and watch them run as they bleed out if you hit something good.
Thanks, that is informative.
I wonder if it's far enough to get out of the earths magnetosphere. By the way if they didn't mention problems with the experiment its probably safe to assume everything went up and operated fine. Don't know till someone releases a paper in a journal though.
I would wager bone loss in the mammals and weightlessness are the biggest contributing factors to death/disease. It could have been something else like mice getting upset and turning on each other because of their environment. Even simple non aggressive animals like frogs can become aggressive due to boredom and environmental reasons.
Perhaps a lower metabolism benefited the lizards/newts. Time to RTFA =)
I've had mixed results with Borax, but thats not boric acid. It works good in clean closets indoors where sometimes the ants will crawl in and try to nest to keep warm. It doesn't work if a real good food source is near though. Like garbage or a pantry.
* Before the G-police show up. Yes I know it's they're.