I don't have the right background, but I have read the article:-)
"A quiet wind tunnel more closely simulates flight," he said. [...] Quiet wind tunnel operation requires laminar flow on the walls of a tunnel segment called the nozzle. Turbulent flow in this segment radiates noise onto the test model, interfering with experiments.
So that is why, probably. The post title was a bit misleading as always. And it runs only for 8 seconds.
altough I understand what you are trying to say, tha cancer analogy is wrong: It is your own cells that are turning cancerous. your body already has learned to ignore those. If you implant ones own cancer, your body still wont recognize it as foreign, because it is not. If you implant somebody else's cancer, your body will recognise it as foreign and fight it. You have to actually trick the immune system to get it to attack tumors. (one experimental method I know of involves isolating heat shock proteins from a tumor, adding bacterial toxins that trigger a immune response and injecting the mix several weeks apart).
But to get back on topic: boiling a frog would be a beter analogy. They get out of the hot water but stay in the water that gets slowly warmed up to a boil. (or at least that is what the rural legend says, never tried it myself)
If there is a genuine demand for it, then you can be sure it will be sold. If you outlaw it it will just not be the providers themselves but these shady types calling themselves 'brokers'. Allow it and you stop a black market from developing.
If there is a market for it, then why not let the phone companies make some bucks out of it? There is little information to be gained from the meta information of my phonecalls. But you would want some ways to opt out of it so persons and companies concerned about it could have the call to and from their number not listed. The downside is offcourse that if this will be allowed, every phone company will make it their standard, and if you want out of it you have to pay more for the priviledge. So maybe restricting them from both ways (the info only goes out with a search warrant) is a better solution. And now on to RTFA...
from their own site: A vacuum is pulled on the incoming warm water to remove the oxygen so as to prevent marine growth on the inside of the plant. call me a dumb biologist, but is there enough energy stored in the 40 degrees F difference between the warm and cold seawater to pull this vacuum and remove a significant amount of dissolved oxygen/nitrogen? I do have my doubts on that. Combine that with the fact the technique takes a very long time to move into production and is still 2-3 years away from actual implementation, i'd say that this technique will not work ever. I hope I am wrong, because it sure looks like a reasonably clean energy source. Depending where you draw it from, water from the bottom of the ocean will contain more salt and nutrients which might upset some ecosystems, but so does a village pumping it's sewage into the ocean.
It looks like very big penis! With that size you don't have to look good. But take a look once in a big seaport and see what hideous contraptions are coming in there. Looks don't say that much.
Although they do a good job of getting media attention, but their message is so extreme, a lot of people will write them off as crackpots and judging righteous IP reformer the same. The downside of their proposal is that it is extremely profitable for big business, more so then for occasional filesharers. If there is no copyright, businesses will be able to rip of any Linux distro and sell it as their own (or any other piece of copyrighted work). This will rearrange the playingfield, but the ones with lots of money to invest have a big advantage here. Copyright is a double edged sword: it protects the big evil business taking advantage of musicians and authors, but also protects independent musicians and authors from the big evil companies (if they are smart enough not to sign all their rights over for a cheap meal and a record deal).
Let's recap: You say GM foods go off more quickly, but generally you mean veggies bought in the supermarket. After all except for some marketed brands, you cannot tell which products are genetically modified with modern techniques, and which ones are genetically modified with older techniques (selective breeding). You also come up with a likely explanation for it: Supermarkets are more lax with shelflife so they can sell them cheaper. That sounds plausible to me too, why not accept it? So maybe there is a relationship between GM and cheap, and cheap and products that are not fresh. But this does not mean that GM is the cause of the unfreshness. On the contrary in the case of the Flavr Savr: that modification makes it keep it's (percieved) freshnes longer, not shorter. That the supermarkets take all that extra shelflive so they can sell it to you cheaper is not the fault of Calgene or the gene construct they added.
As for the language thing: dictionaries do not make new words, they only register their use. language is constantly evolving (unless you are a creationist), so people use it in old way while other people use it in new ways. The evil marketing ploy in it is that 'biological' or 'organic' has little meaning in the 'old' way. The opposite(== not the newly named product) however, is pretty bizarre in the 'old' use of the word. That is not the case with green (red?) or computer (pencil? neolithic hunter-gatherer?). But from the human Europe, I wish my (non-human) opponent all the best. Ook!
True most of those veggies i don't know. Sugar beet however, is not something you eat fresh methinks. If your list is exaustive, it shows that most veggies in US supermarkets are not GM. That you mention the FlavrSavr as an example that GM productc go off sooner is truly ironic and proves my point entirely: the greengrocers stuff is fresher, but not because it is GM free. And I am aware of the way the green religions people hijacked the trems biological and organic, thereby implying that anything that does not follow their dogma's is anorganic (chemistry not based on carbon backbones) or abiological (no alive). That is a good marketing spin, maybe Europe should call itself 'human' as contrasted to the aggressive aliens living on the other side of the pond.
And a very Happy New Year to you all! (even the green skinned non-humans)
You are truly talking out of your arse. What fresh GM veggies can you buy in the supermarket? maize? Soy? Potato, The only thing that I know of marketed to consumers one time was a tomato that would keep longer, not shorter. If you really thing GM food will rot sooner, you don't have a clue about genetic modification. They add one or two genes to add a particular trait like roundup resistance. That will not change ripening of the veggie. If you think the veggies in your supermarket go off sooner than the 'bio'(ever seen vegetables that were anorganic?) stuff you buy at the greengrocer, that is probably because the supermarket stuff has worse or older products (and the other reason is because you don't know what double blind tests are. The plural of anecdote != data).
Utility vehicles are bought with cost efficiency in mind, personal cars are not (or how could you explaing anything other then a small compact?).
Smart and dumb people are equally impervious to reason. Smarter people only make up more complex arguments/fallacies to explain away their bad habits, like smoking or driving cars. I am not too impressed by your argument either.
Think again before you say something that makes you appear as one of the few doing something good. Maybe the other Lug members are not interested in you and your lack of modesty. People tend to shun that (or at least I do) althoug the subjects you are dealing with may or may not be interesting. If you really think you have something interesting to say, I think nobody will stop you if you prepare and have a little presentation about a subject of your choice. But keep in mind that you need to supply reason why other people should be interested in your subject, so approach it from a general or newbie point of view. 'because I can' is not a good reason, for the most part because 'I' is the most important word in that sentence and most people are not interested in your 'I'. In short: stop boasting, start teaching or shut up.
The procedure you propose might work, but only against open vandalism. I read a lot in Wikipedia, but most articles are completely new to me. How can 1 in 5 people judge if the number of inhabitans is reported correctly of if the mayor has resigned in a scandal involving a clock, a bottle of wiskey and some rubber bands? If some goon from the village next door decides to adjust some numbers and text over a few weeks, the article will still end up with the wrong facts. You may be right that you must bebearing a pretty big grudge to do that, but it could also be some PR company needing to fix some public image, are doing 'guerilla' marketing. When there is an incentive, people will do it, an wikipedia is vulnerable by design. The problem is this: no procedure or model in wikipedia is going to generate objective knowledge, but it still tries to capture that knowledge in its articles. The only procedure that does result in objective knowledge is science, and wikipedia has rejected that model. So while most of wikipedia makes nice reading when you are bored, one should never take it for granted. You can never be sure some goon from the boondocks is not using it to grind his axe or further his own point of view.
Similar to language specific adaptations that have to be made to the tests, the norms itself are different over here. Since we have no village idiots playing rolemodel, the testers did not feel the urge to lower the the standards so that their headmonkey would not fall too far of the scale (on the left side). You have to specify which standard you are referring to, so you'd get either 100 EUR-IQ or 130 USD-IQ.:-)
I really knew it all along, but it is not nice to rub it under people noses. So thanks again for making me feel smart, I'v been using linux exclusively since 1999.
That is something to do with logistics, as they probably had easier acces to examiners in those topics than in say -robotic porn animation. You have no indication weather the error rate in other topics than the on e tested is higher or lower.
The test is being done with a suborbital sounding rocket, they are not going into orbit. The test will experience weightlessness for 10 minutes and then tumble back to earth. They have no budget for orbital tests and the submitter could have known that if he read/researched his own story.
Is the sword of a swardfish ahorn like some mammals have or is it a protrusion of its upper jaw. Is it used for fighting or does it serve another function? (perheps a s some sensory organ...)
You have a very peculiar way to make an argument. What is the point of link 2? But then again, it is probably a lot easier to bend down a bit when you want to talk to other people than to have to stand on your toes all the time. I prefer a barstool usually, i equalises in both ways. Cheers!
Well I did read it. Twice. I still cannot understand what it had to do with narwals. Now that I reread your post I see that it does not: you just din't know the word gradient. I cannot imagine how, but that is fair enough to me.
But for a particle gradient: I doubt that narwals will be able to sense that, unles the particles in questions where on a molecular scale. Usually that is termed as salinity, or salinity gradient in this case. particles in a seawater environment would usually be associted with algae and plankton. An animal that eats cod and other fish would have little use for plankton data/methinks.
The Tusks are not used for fighting. I am a biologist, and I do not know of any marine creature with horns used for fighting. Walrusses use their tusks for fighting, but that is on land. I doubt if they would be effective in the water.
Also, teeth are not easily broken, it is one of the most resilient parts of the whole body. One of the most commonly found fossils are teeth. And if you ever have had a big toothache, you'd know that there are plenty of nerves inside them.
But the reason narwals evolved a tooth for the job is probably because it was the easiest organ at hand: it already is laced with nerve endings, the only adapations it needed was for it to grow much bigger/longer and be pointed forward.
It's funny though, some people can sense weather changes through ulcers or athritis, but these guys sense them though their teeth, and they are not even rotten. (TFA speculates that the pointing of tusks into the air while surfacing for breathing would be to check the weather).
But not as you know it. Narwal are not the only species that have protrusions laced with sensors. Most insects have extremities that are used for sensing too, only in their case they are derived from legs (switch of the antennapedia gene and you get induviduals with legs on their heads) But being a creature that has lost it's legs long ago, it uses a tooth instead of a leg. They must earn fortunes from the tooth fairy though;-)
Actually the shareprice went up, rendering your (fictional)put options worthless. The resignation of their CEO was welcomed by inverstors. But hold on to your options, they may have worth when Diebold keeps doing the stupid things they do and investors realise it was not only their CEO that had suffered braindamage after repeated beatings with a clue-by-four. They Use windows and claim their systems are safe and tamperproof. Their 'engineers' should be stripped of their title and engineers badge too! oh wait 'software engineer' is not a protected title...
Slashdot Mirror
So that is why, probably. The post title was a bit misleading as always. And it runs only for 8 seconds.
altough I understand what you are trying to say, tha cancer analogy is wrong: It is your own cells that are turning cancerous. your body already has learned to ignore those. If you implant ones own cancer, your body still wont recognize it as foreign, because it is not. If you implant somebody else's cancer, your body will recognise it as foreign and fight it. You have to actually trick the immune system to get it to attack tumors. (one experimental method I know of involves isolating heat shock proteins from a tumor, adding bacterial toxins that trigger a immune response and injecting the mix several weeks apart).
But to get back on topic: boiling a frog would be a beter analogy. They get out of the hot water but stay in the water that gets slowly warmed up to a boil. (or at least that is what the rural legend says, never tried it myself)
If there is a genuine demand for it, then you can be sure it will be sold. If you outlaw it it will just not be the providers themselves but these shady types calling themselves 'brokers'. Allow it and you stop a black market from developing.
If there is a market for it, then why not let the phone companies make some bucks out of it? There is little information to be gained from the meta information of my phonecalls. But you would want some ways to opt out of it so persons and companies concerned about it could have the call to and from their number not listed.
The downside is offcourse that if this will be allowed, every phone company will make it their standard, and if you want out of it you have to pay more for the priviledge. So maybe restricting them from both ways (the info only goes out with a search warrant) is a better solution.
And now on to RTFA...
from their own site: A vacuum is pulled on the incoming warm water to remove the oxygen so as to prevent marine growth on the inside of the plant. call me a dumb biologist, but is there enough energy stored in the 40 degrees F difference between the warm and cold seawater to pull this vacuum and remove a significant amount of dissolved oxygen/nitrogen? I do have my doubts on that.
Combine that with the fact the technique takes a very long time to move into production and is still 2-3 years away from actual implementation, i'd say that this technique will not work ever. I hope I am wrong, because it sure looks like a reasonably clean energy source.
Depending where you draw it from, water from the bottom of the ocean will contain more salt and nutrients which might upset some ecosystems, but so does a village pumping it's sewage into the ocean.
It looks like very big penis! With that size you don't have to look good.
But take a look once in a big seaport and see what hideous contraptions are coming in there. Looks don't say that much.
Although they do a good job of getting media attention, but their message is so extreme, a lot of people will write them off as crackpots and judging righteous IP reformer the same.
The downside of their proposal is that it is extremely profitable for big business, more so then for occasional filesharers. If there is no copyright, businesses will be able to rip of any Linux distro and sell it as their own (or any other piece of copyrighted work). This will rearrange the playingfield, but the ones with lots of money to invest have a big advantage here.
Copyright is a double edged sword: it protects the big evil business taking advantage of musicians and authors, but also protects independent musicians and authors from the big evil companies (if they are smart enough not to sign all their rights over for a cheap meal and a record deal).
Let's recap: You say GM foods go off more quickly, but generally you mean veggies bought in the supermarket. After all except for some marketed brands, you cannot tell which products are genetically modified with modern techniques, and which ones are genetically modified with older techniques (selective breeding).
You also come up with a likely explanation for it: Supermarkets are more lax with shelflife so they can sell them cheaper. That sounds plausible to me too, why not accept it?
So maybe there is a relationship between GM and cheap, and cheap and products that are not fresh. But this does not mean that GM is the cause of the unfreshness. On the contrary in the case of the Flavr Savr: that modification makes it keep it's (percieved) freshnes longer, not shorter. That the supermarkets take all that extra shelflive so they can sell it to you cheaper is not the fault of Calgene or the gene construct they added.
As for the language thing: dictionaries do not make new words, they only register their use. language is constantly evolving (unless you are a creationist), so people use it in old way while other people use it in new ways. The evil marketing ploy in it is that 'biological' or 'organic' has little meaning in the 'old' way. The opposite(== not the newly named product) however, is pretty bizarre in the 'old' use of the word. That is not the case with green (red?) or computer (pencil? neolithic hunter-gatherer?).
But from the human Europe, I wish my (non-human) opponent all the best. Ook!
True most of those veggies i don't know. Sugar beet however, is not something you eat fresh methinks. If your list is exaustive, it shows that most veggies in US supermarkets are not GM.
That you mention the FlavrSavr as an example that GM productc go off sooner is truly ironic and proves my point entirely: the greengrocers stuff is fresher, but not because it is GM free.
And I am aware of the way the green religions people hijacked the trems biological and organic, thereby implying that anything that does not follow their dogma's is anorganic (chemistry not based on carbon backbones) or abiological (no alive). That is a good marketing spin, maybe Europe should call itself 'human' as contrasted to the aggressive aliens living on the other side of the pond.
And a very Happy New Year to you all! (even the green skinned non-humans)
You are truly talking out of your arse. What fresh GM veggies can you buy in the supermarket? maize? Soy? Potato, The only thing that I know of marketed to consumers one time was a tomato that would keep longer, not shorter. If you really thing GM food will rot sooner, you don't have a clue about genetic modification. They add one or two genes to add a particular trait like roundup resistance. That will not change ripening of the veggie. If you think the veggies in your supermarket go off sooner than the 'bio'(ever seen vegetables that were anorganic?) stuff you buy at the greengrocer, that is probably because the supermarket stuff has worse or older products (and the other reason is because you don't know what double blind tests are. The plural of anecdote != data).
Utility vehicles are bought with cost efficiency in mind, personal cars are not (or how could you explaing anything other then a small compact?).
Smart and dumb people are equally impervious to reason. Smarter people only make up more complex arguments/fallacies to explain away their bad habits, like smoking or driving cars. I am not too impressed by your argument either.
Think again before you say something that makes you appear as one of the few doing something good. Maybe the other Lug members are not interested in you and your lack of modesty. People tend to shun that (or at least I do) althoug the subjects you are dealing with may or may not be interesting.
If you really think you have something interesting to say, I think nobody will stop you if you prepare and have a little presentation about a subject of your choice. But keep in mind that you need to supply reason why other people should be interested in your subject, so approach it from a general or newbie point of view. 'because I can' is not a good reason, for the most part because 'I' is the most important word in that sentence and most people are not interested in your 'I'.
In short: stop boasting, start teaching or shut up.
The procedure you propose might work, but only against open vandalism. I read a lot in Wikipedia, but most articles are completely new to me. How can 1 in 5 people judge if the number of inhabitans is reported correctly of if the mayor has resigned in a scandal involving a clock, a bottle of wiskey and some rubber bands? If some goon from the village next door decides to adjust some numbers and text over a few weeks, the article will still end up with the wrong facts.
You may be right that you must bebearing a pretty big grudge to do that, but it could also be some PR company needing to fix some public image, are doing 'guerilla' marketing. When there is an incentive, people will do it, an wikipedia is vulnerable by design.
The problem is this: no procedure or model in wikipedia is going to generate objective knowledge, but it still tries to capture that knowledge in its articles. The only procedure that does result in objective knowledge is science, and wikipedia has rejected that model.
So while most of wikipedia makes nice reading when you are bored, one should never take it for granted. You can never be sure some goon from the boondocks is not using it to grind his axe or further his own point of view.
Similar to language specific adaptations that have to be made to the tests, the norms itself are different over here. Since we have no village idiots playing rolemodel, the testers did not feel the urge to lower the the standards so that their headmonkey would not fall too far of the scale (on the left side). You have to specify which standard you are referring to, so you'd get either 100 EUR-IQ or 130 USD-IQ. :-)
I really knew it all along, but it is not nice to rub it under people noses. So thanks again for making me feel smart, I'v been using linux exclusively since 1999.
That is something to do with logistics, as they probably had easier acces to examiners in those topics than in say -robotic porn animation.
You have no indication weather the error rate in other topics than the on e tested is higher or lower.
The test is being done with a suborbital sounding rocket, they are not going into orbit. The test will experience weightlessness for 10 minutes and then tumble back to earth.
They have no budget for orbital tests and the submitter could have known that if he read/researched his own story.
Is the sword of a swardfish ahorn like some mammals have or is it a protrusion of its upper jaw. Is it used for fighting or does it serve another function? (perheps a s some sensory organ...)
You have a very peculiar way to make an argument. What is the point of link 2?
But then again, it is probably a lot easier to bend down a bit when you want to talk to other people than to have to stand on your toes all the time. I prefer a barstool usually, i equalises in both ways. Cheers!
Well I did read it. Twice. I still cannot understand what it had to do with narwals. Now that I reread your post I see that it does not: you just din't know the word gradient. I cannot imagine how, but that is fair enough to me.
/methinks.
But for a particle gradient: I doubt that narwals will be able to sense that, unles the particles in questions where on a molecular scale. Usually that is termed as salinity, or salinity gradient in this case. particles in a seawater environment would usually be associted with algae and plankton. An animal that eats cod and other fish would have little use for plankton data
Come on, you don't know what a gradient is? And some press release laced with bullshitbingowords is able to teach you that? strange...
The Tusks are not used for fighting. I am a biologist, and I do not know of any marine creature with horns used for fighting. Walrusses use their tusks for fighting, but that is on land. I doubt if they would be effective in the water.
Also, teeth are not easily broken, it is one of the most resilient parts of the whole body. One of the most commonly found fossils are teeth. And if you ever have had a big toothache, you'd know that there are plenty of nerves inside them.
But the reason narwals evolved a tooth for the job is probably because it was the easiest organ at hand: it already is laced with nerve endings, the only adapations it needed was for it to grow much bigger/longer and be pointed forward.
It's funny though, some people can sense weather changes through ulcers or athritis, but these guys sense them though their teeth, and they are not even rotten. (TFA speculates that the pointing of tusks into the air while surfacing for breathing would be to check the weather).
The title of your link is: Scientists Create New Material With Varying Densities of Gold Nanoparticles
What on earth does that have to do with narwal tusks? A clear case of karma fooling if you ask me...
But not as you know it. Narwal are not the only species that have protrusions laced with sensors. Most insects have extremities that are used for sensing too, only in their case they are derived from legs (switch of the antennapedia gene and you get induviduals with legs on their heads) ;-)
But being a creature that has lost it's legs long ago, it uses a tooth instead of a leg. They must earn fortunes from the tooth fairy though
Actually the shareprice went up, rendering your (fictional)put options worthless. The resignation of their CEO was welcomed by inverstors.
But hold on to your options, they may have worth when Diebold keeps doing the stupid things they do and investors realise it was not only their CEO that had suffered braindamage after repeated beatings with a clue-by-four. They Use windows and claim their systems are safe and tamperproof. Their 'engineers' should be stripped of their title and engineers badge too! oh wait 'software engineer' is not a protected title...