It's not like this is unprecedented. I don't know what's so special about Assange that they could not have done this a long time ago.
My guess on what's about to happen:
- Sweden interviews him and drops the charges.
- Assange steps out of the embassy and is immediately arrested.
- Assange is charged in the US and extradited within a few days.
Bollocks. The United States of America is the nexus of true freedom in this universe. They love whistleblowers, I hear they want snowmen back to apologize to him about the whole misunderstanding and return the ill gotten rights of the government, obtained by one or two bad apples, to the citizens. Furthermore the USA would never resort to underhanded tactics like that. How could you be so insulting to such great nations? I dare you to find a SINGLE real world example!!!
77V average forward voltage with 10mA of current and delivers 102 lumens. The high voltage somewhat simplifies the driving circuitry. I'm assuming its around 20 forward elements in series per filament. The overall bulb efficiency is probably 70% of the filament. Overall a pretty nice spectral response from the phosphors and the light seems to look good (not sure as I've only seen video). The lack of heat problems seems believable if the efficiency is as good as is claimed.
Is it safe? Imagine if someone drank absolutely pure water - wouldn't you overdose and die? Thank goodness for natural minerals and man made pollution in my water that saves my ass every day.
Actually it dosent refute them. If you include diesels, which are ominously left out, by your source half of America is polluting more using full electrics. Furthermore, electrics cost 2-5x the price of economy modern diesels making the best impact for dollars spent diesels and efficient gas cars. At more than double the cost you would need to pollute less than half to have a bigger impact in total emissions - not marginally better for less than half the us population. now look at china and India - every electric pollutes much more than efficient gas and diesel and there are many more people than in the USA. I'm not sure if you didn't read the article you linked to or not, I'd give it another look you just made my point stronger.
The cost of just the Golden Gate Bridge is 76M alone. It's about 2 million dollars per suicide victim in a year. Here's a thought, spend that money *on people who need treatment* instead of a 76M net that just causes them to jump a half mile down the road. The cost of a safety system dosent even begin to do the same good direct treatment does.
What method works in space but wouldn't work on mars? You can straight line accelerate but that takes unrealistic energy in either case. Centrifuges would work just fine in either case, on mars you would simply have your 'down' located at some angle to Martian gravity. Given the thin atmosphere on Mars you wouldn't need very much energy to overcome the drag. I'm not aware of any studies of long term 1/3 gravity on humans. Most are for the microgravity you encounter in orbit. There may or may not be serious problems, it's undetermined at this point.
You mean like the 300 pulsars we already know of in the milky way? No need to manipulate stars when nature has already provided you highly accurate and in many cases quite energetic signals to locate from.
We here on earth are already developing a space gps system based on pulsars. They are extremely accurate and plentiful. A database of pulsars and the directions and frequency they emit is all you need to locate yourself in our galaxy in a very short time. No fancy anythin needed and we already have the technology (gps) so it should be a piece of cake for advanced civilizations.
I must have missed the part where anyone in the article (or in the entire history of mankind, for that matter) suggested that we should try to change "every last bridge, high area, train track, city sidewalk, etc. into 'hampster' style fenced off tunnels". Could you point where that proposal was made? I feel so silly, here I was thinking that they were just proposing trying to address a few of the easiest and most common ways people commit suicide. But no, I suppose when they put a fence on the sides of a bridge just down the street from the campus of one of the most stressful universities in the country, that was just the first step to locking us all into hamster tubes.
Now I know no one reads the article and it is behind a paywall but FTFA:
Instead of treating individual risk, means restriction entails modifying the environment by removing the means by which people usually die by suicide. The world cannot be made suicide-proof, of course. But, these researchers argue, if the walkway over a bridge is fenced off, a struggling college freshman cannot throw herself over the side. If parents leave guns in a locked safe, a teenage son cannot shoot himself if he suddenly decides life is hopeless.
they are talking about fencing off bridges - the logical conclusion is to cage it in completely as is common with walkways over freeways in many areas already. The problem is the popular areas get replaced by a new popular area once fenced off. There are an astounding amount of areas that need to be 'made safe'. The cost of such a project vs. the return is nowhere near the scant money we actually spend on research and development which is where the real future prospects for cures and successful treatments actually are. Guns are a similar slippery slope. It's always good to lock guns up but you never really know who will snap. The same is true for people driving cars, they are at least as dangerous as a gun. There is even a term for people who get aroused from car accidents - where does this madness end besides doing the research?
I can only imagine the costs of changing every last bridge, high area, train track, city sidewalk, etc. into hampster style fenced off tunnels to be, at a minimum, in the hundreds of billions of US dollars (world costs in the tens of trillions) while leaving hundreds of millions of homes in the US alone still chock full of methods to commit suicide anyway. Not to mention natural areas - are we going to fence off every cliff within a few miles of a homestead too? Here's a thought that's way out there; let's spend those billions on research and development of new medication and treatments instead - that would likely have a far bigger impact. Sadly it's just poorly thought through emotional click bait instead of a sane approach to solving a serious problem. It's as if the rationality of humans is as well evolved as our lower spines.
Lmafo. No. I'm about facts and reality. The facts are efficient gas and diesel are less polluting for 80% of the population - moreover it's worse in America with such a high per capita use. You sir, are part of the problem with polluting the planet - blindly following dogma over facts. You blather on but don't actully provide facts to the contrary. Why should I listen to your opinion over facts presented by an electric car loving site that does present its sources?
Well the new Audi gets close to that freeway and it's not economy: http://m.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-audi-a6-a7-tdi-first-drive-review Also these: http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-10-most-fuel-efficient-gas-and-diesel-cars-for-sale-today/ many get over 40 freeway and some get well over 30 city. Note that these are American style cars and not the better performing smaller European models.
I think you mean gallon of gas - not a gallon of CO2. But yes those figures are in the ballpark. Note that in some countries, like France, you are better off with electric. However not in the majority of cases. For a limited budget, by far the best option for reducing CO2 and particulates, is to go with modern diesels. They get the same mileage as a Prius at half the cost. If we gave the same US subsidy to efficient modern diesels we would do far more good than just subsidy to electrics or hybrids.
Electric and hybrid cars are better for the environment, and they already employ technology to charge the batteries with energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat (for example, the braking systems.)
It is not outrageous to explore ways of capturing energy from the flexing of the tires that also would otherwise be wasted as heat. As I see it, the challenge for Goodyear would be to show that the process is efficient enough to be worth adding to the tire design.
Electric and hybrid cars are only better for the environment when they aren't coal powered. Electric and hybrid sports cars and SUVs are obviously not very good for the environment as say a lighter more moderately powered car that will do the job adequately. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com... this site is very very pro electric so if anything they are likely bias toward electrics. However in India and China a regular gas automobile pollutes less CO2/mile than an electric. In the USA it takes a fuel efficient gas car but you still pollute less CO2/mile. If you happen to live in some European countries then yes electrics are actually better. However about 80% of the world lives in areas where electrical generation is so polluting electric cars are actually worse.
It's too difficult to extract the necessary information from sensors like vision, take into account real world scenarios where crap happens, then actually carry out the task. Maybe in 20 years. I thought 20 years 20 years ago so your mileage may vary.
a much better technique than the big lecture hall format, with students zoning out half the time.
whoa, whoa there. I had to tough out falling asleep along with every other student in my class. Faking attention through extremely boring lectures by boring people *IS* one of the most valuable workplace skills out there. I haven't read the article or the summary but I'm beyond certain it's a recipe for failure if it dosent address the important aspects of college education.
So let me get this right. You are in a 'driverless car'. Yet your job is to painstakenly hover over the controls trying to double guess the AI every single second you are in the vehicle?!???!! Good luck with that because if the AI fucks up you have a second or two tops to stop yourself from becoming road paste. It sounds like a massive copout from manufacturers wanting to sell autonomous features before the technology is mature enough to realistically insure and assure customer safety.
EPA: We have never seen the like of your flagrant disregard for all regulation, you are single handedly responsible for massive amounts of pollution. We have documentation of your polluting over the last 5 years.
Evil Corporation: Yes well now that we are done with our drilling projects could you reproduce those measurements just to be sure?
EPA: we had highly sensitive instruments, your pollution was beyond obvious - just look at the corpses!
Evil Corporation: So you can't reproduce the data?
EPA: how are we supposed to do that? Use a time machine?
Evil Corporation: well if that's all you got we are done here. Off to expand our corporate rights beyond mere citizenship.
Simple, America owns the world. Sure there have been rejections in the past. But how many were from first class citiz^h^h^h^horporations? Likely those are just second class idiots with no real rights.
Or they plan on landing inside Territory belonging to a country with valid patent laws and existing IP. I'm not sure which is more reasonable to be honest.
The job of an editor is NOT to just present stories that go along with the group-think of the day. We have Faux News and their ilk for that. Also, if they edit submissions too much "for clarity" the submitter will complain that's not what they wrote. So what are you going to do?
Well, would it be too much to ask for them to fix the typos and make sure the links work?
Despite your low id you must be new here. The answer is yes it's too much.
Nobody 'travels through time' when they get close to lightspeed, it is just the Universe in front of you that gets flatter, like a pancake, so you cover a shorter distance, in the same time. For those, who move about like the light, the Universe is, like, 2D in the direction of movement, so you travel instantaneously.
The rest of the universe ages noticably past.9c and when you are nearly lightspeed a billion years of rest speed with respect to the cosmic microwave background could pass for each second of your perception. So yes you do travel through time. People would 'see' you as frozen in time, moving at one billion times slower than normal. Of course they would need to stretch out your compressed and distorted image but the idea is valid.
Unless you have an isotopic source of photons (point source) the photons will have preferential directions. Not that the probability is exactly zero for some directions, but for a flashlight style beam the chance a photon will make it through the reflector, battery, case, and perhaps part of your hand is quite low.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally.
It's not like this is unprecedented. I don't know what's so special about Assange that they could not have done this a long time ago.
My guess on what's about to happen:
- Sweden interviews him and drops the charges.
- Assange steps out of the embassy and is immediately arrested.
- Assange is charged in the US and extradited within a few days.
Bollocks. The United States of America is the nexus of true freedom in this universe. They love whistleblowers, I hear they want snowmen back to apologize to him about the whole misunderstanding and return the ill gotten rights of the government, obtained by one or two bad apples, to the citizens. Furthermore the USA would never resort to underhanded tactics like that. How could you be so insulting to such great nations? I dare you to find a SINGLE real world example!!!
Kinda like this questioning then link
Glad to see the rest of the world is learning from America, a truly inspiring nation.
77V average forward voltage with 10mA of current and delivers 102 lumens. The high voltage somewhat simplifies the driving circuitry. I'm assuming its around 20 forward elements in series per filament. The overall bulb efficiency is probably 70% of the filament. Overall a pretty nice spectral response from the phosphors and the light seems to look good (not sure as I've only seen video). The lack of heat problems seems believable if the efficiency is as good as is claimed.
Is it safe? Imagine if someone drank absolutely pure water - wouldn't you overdose and die? Thank goodness for natural minerals and man made pollution in my water that saves my ass every day.
Actually it dosent refute them. If you include diesels, which are ominously left out, by your source half of America is polluting more using full electrics. Furthermore, electrics cost 2-5x the price of economy modern diesels making the best impact for dollars spent diesels and efficient gas cars. At more than double the cost you would need to pollute less than half to have a bigger impact in total emissions - not marginally better for less than half the us population.
now look at china and India - every electric pollutes much more than efficient gas and diesel and there are many more people than in the USA. I'm not sure if you didn't read the article you linked to or not, I'd give it another look you just made my point stronger.
The cost of just the Golden Gate Bridge is 76M alone. It's about 2 million dollars per suicide victim in a year. Here's a thought, spend that money *on people who need treatment* instead of a 76M net that just causes them to jump a half mile down the road. The cost of a safety system dosent even begin to do the same good direct treatment does.
What method works in space but wouldn't work on mars? You can straight line accelerate but that takes unrealistic energy in either case. Centrifuges would work just fine in either case, on mars you would simply have your 'down' located at some angle to Martian gravity. Given the thin atmosphere on Mars you wouldn't need very much energy to overcome the drag.
I'm not aware of any studies of long term 1/3 gravity on humans. Most are for the microgravity you encounter in orbit. There may or may not be serious problems, it's undetermined at this point.
You mean like the 300 pulsars we already know of in the milky way? No need to manipulate stars when nature has already provided you highly accurate and in many cases quite energetic signals to locate from.
We here on earth are already developing a space gps system based on pulsars. They are extremely accurate and plentiful. A database of pulsars and the directions and frequency they emit is all you need to locate yourself in our galaxy in a very short time. No fancy anythin needed and we already have the technology (gps) so it should be a piece of cake for advanced civilizations.
I must have missed the part where anyone in the article (or in the entire history of mankind, for that matter) suggested that we should try to change "every last bridge, high area, train track, city sidewalk, etc. into 'hampster' style fenced off tunnels". Could you point where that proposal was made? I feel so silly, here I was thinking that they were just proposing trying to address a few of the easiest and most common ways people commit suicide. But no, I suppose when they put a fence on the sides of a bridge just down the street from the campus of one of the most stressful universities in the country, that was just the first step to locking us all into hamster tubes.
Now I know no one reads the article and it is behind a paywall but FTFA:
Instead of treating individual risk, means restriction entails modifying the environment by removing the means by which people usually die by suicide. The world cannot be made suicide-proof, of course. But, these researchers argue, if the walkway over a bridge is fenced off, a struggling college freshman cannot throw herself over the side. If parents leave guns in a locked safe, a teenage son cannot shoot himself if he suddenly decides life is hopeless.
they are talking about fencing off bridges - the logical conclusion is to cage it in completely as is common with walkways over freeways in many areas already. The problem is the popular areas get replaced by a new popular area once fenced off. There are an astounding amount of areas that need to be 'made safe'. The cost of such a project vs. the return is nowhere near the scant money we actually spend on research and development which is where the real future prospects for cures and successful treatments actually are. Guns are a similar slippery slope. It's always good to lock guns up but you never really know who will snap. The same is true for people driving cars, they are at least as dangerous as a gun. There is even a term for people who get aroused from car accidents - where does this madness end besides doing the research?
I can only imagine the costs of changing every last bridge, high area, train track, city sidewalk, etc. into hampster style fenced off tunnels to be, at a minimum, in the hundreds of billions of US dollars (world costs in the tens of trillions) while leaving hundreds of millions of homes in the US alone still chock full of methods to commit suicide anyway. Not to mention natural areas - are we going to fence off every cliff within a few miles of a homestead too?
Here's a thought that's way out there; let's spend those billions on research and development of new medication and treatments instead - that would likely have a far bigger impact. Sadly it's just poorly thought through emotional click bait instead of a sane approach to solving a serious problem. It's as if the rationality of humans is as well evolved as our lower spines.
Oh the irony. If I had mod points if go with funny mr anonymous coward.
Lmafo. No. I'm about facts and reality. The facts are efficient gas and diesel are less polluting for 80% of the population - moreover it's worse in America with such a high per capita use. You sir, are part of the problem with polluting the planet - blindly following dogma over facts. You blather on but don't actully provide facts to the contrary. Why should I listen to your opinion over facts presented by an electric car loving site that does present its sources?
Well the new Audi gets close to that freeway and it's not economy:
http://m.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-audi-a6-a7-tdi-first-drive-review
Also these:
http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-10-most-fuel-efficient-gas-and-diesel-cars-for-sale-today/
many get over 40 freeway and some get well over 30 city. Note that these are American style cars and not the better performing smaller European models.
Was it a black smoke plume that changes shape a lot? I'm pretty sure the island is moved by now, likely all are lost.
I think you mean gallon of gas - not a gallon of CO2. But yes those figures are in the ballpark. Note that in some countries, like France, you are better off with electric. However not in the majority of cases. For a limited budget, by far the best option for reducing CO2 and particulates, is to go with modern diesels. They get the same mileage as a Prius at half the cost. If we gave the same US subsidy to efficient modern diesels we would do far more good than just subsidy to electrics or hybrids.
Electric and hybrid cars are better for the environment, and they already employ technology to charge the batteries with energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat (for example, the braking systems.)
It is not outrageous to explore ways of capturing energy from the flexing of the tires that also would otherwise be wasted as heat. As I see it, the challenge for Goodyear would be to show that the process is efficient enough to be worth adding to the tire design.
Electric and hybrid cars are only better for the environment when they aren't coal powered. Electric and hybrid sports cars and SUVs are obviously not very good for the environment as say a lighter more moderately powered car that will do the job adequately.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com... this site is very very pro electric so if anything they are likely bias toward electrics. However in India and China a regular gas automobile pollutes less CO2/mile than an electric. In the USA it takes a fuel efficient gas car but you still pollute less CO2/mile. If you happen to live in some European countries then yes electrics are actually better. However about 80% of the world lives in areas where electrical generation is so polluting electric cars are actually worse.
It's too difficult to extract the necessary information from sensors like vision, take into account real world scenarios where crap happens, then actually carry out the task. Maybe in 20 years. I thought 20 years 20 years ago so your mileage may vary.
a much better technique than the big lecture hall format, with students zoning out half the time.
whoa, whoa there. I had to tough out falling asleep along with every other student in my class. Faking attention through extremely boring lectures by boring people *IS* one of the most valuable workplace skills out there. I haven't read the article or the summary but I'm beyond certain it's a recipe for failure if it dosent address the important aspects of college education.
So let me get this right. You are in a 'driverless car'. Yet your job is to painstakenly hover over the controls trying to double guess the AI every single second you are in the vehicle?!???!! Good luck with that because if the AI fucks up you have a second or two tops to stop yourself from becoming road paste. It sounds like a massive copout from manufacturers wanting to sell autonomous features before the technology is mature enough to realistically insure and assure customer safety.
Here is how that will work:
EPA: We have never seen the like of your flagrant disregard for all regulation, you are single handedly responsible for massive amounts of pollution. We have documentation of your polluting over the last 5 years.
Evil Corporation: Yes well now that we are done with our drilling projects could you reproduce those measurements just to be sure?
EPA: we had highly sensitive instruments, your pollution was beyond obvious - just look at the corpses!
Evil Corporation: So you can't reproduce the data?
EPA: how are we supposed to do that? Use a time machine?
Evil Corporation: well if that's all you got we are done here. Off to expand our corporate rights beyond mere citizenship.
Simple, America owns the world. Sure there have been rejections in the past. But how many were from first class citiz^h^h^h^horporations? Likely those are just second class idiots with no real rights. Or they plan on landing inside Territory belonging to a country with valid patent laws and existing IP. I'm not sure which is more reasonable to be honest.
Well, would it be too much to ask for them to fix the typos and make sure the links work?
Despite your low id you must be new here. The answer is yes it's too much.
Nobody 'travels through time' when they get close to lightspeed, it is just the Universe in front of you that gets flatter, like a pancake, so you cover a shorter distance, in the same time. For those, who move about like the light, the Universe is, like, 2D in the direction of movement, so you travel instantaneously.
The rest of the universe ages noticably past .9c and when you are nearly lightspeed a billion years of rest speed with respect to the cosmic microwave background could pass for each second of your perception. So yes you do travel through time. People would 'see' you as frozen in time, moving at one billion times slower than normal. Of course they would need to stretch out your compressed and distorted image but the idea is valid.
Unless you have an isotopic source of photons (point source) the photons will have preferential directions. Not that the probability is exactly zero for some directions, but for a flashlight style beam the chance a photon will make it through the reflector, battery, case, and perhaps part of your hand is quite low.