It's pretty well established that exposure levels are given in units above the background. This isn't new. If you were taught how to read a geiger counter in high school the first thing they should have taught you was how to zero it out so the background levels (which are different from place to place) didn't affect your measurements. So no, no one is going to go through life with less than.1Sv, not if they make it to 40 anyway, but most people who don't work in radiation exposing occupations and don't get seriously ill will go through life without.1Sv of additional exposure, which is what the article is talking about.
Linked paper talks about hormesis, specifically about how it's a largely debunked theory that isn't taken seriously by anyone in the field any more. In fact, there's research that shows low level radiation being more harmful (in a relative, risk vs Sv exposed way) than less.
Exposure is always expressed in amounts over the background rate. So "Lower than background level" effectively means exposure to up to 2x the background level (background level + artificial); there's nothing illogical about being worried about it (though I wouldn't personally be concerned about a ~.0025 Sv per year exposure rate).
As for the rest of your comment, if you read the paper the summary links to, you'll see that all the evidence is pointing toward all exposure (presumably below radiation poisoning levels) carrying approximately the same relative risk. It doesn't matter high or low energy, it doesn't matter if you're exposed in 10 minutes or 10 years. Your total exposure level linearly maps to your risk of cancer (and, new information to me at least, heart attack and stroke).
Maybe the fact that it always seems 50 years away has something to do with this?
They said in 1978 that then current funding levels would never produce a viable power platform. To get one going by today would have required on average $2.5 billion per year by the fusion researchers' own estimates. Actual funding since 1978? $500 million per year. Quite blaming the science for the politicians shortsightedness.
Let's say worst case, and your self replicating nano machines can efficiently extract all then energy in a chemical bond and put it to use. Some, in fact a significant portion, of that energy is going to have to go toward reassembling the molecules into copies of your original nano machine. The rest will be used to break the chemical bonds of the next bit of raw materials.
So now you've got a grey goo outbreak, that freaking sucks. Assuming (again, we're going worst case here) that your replicating nano-machines can't be easily destroyed by high temperatures, water, or simple acids and bases, you're going to need to 'fight fire with fire'. So, you bring in your truck that you've had ready for just such a situation (because if we're advanced enough to make efficient, fast, temperature and water resistant nano machines we should know enough to be prepared). The truck has a tank of raw materials or just a tank of premade nano machines, except these nano machines aren't going to be wasting the majority of their energy budget trying to replicate themselves, they're mass produced at the factory (either on the truck or somewhere even more centralized).
Well that depends on what you mean by "earth-like" and what you mean by "had to be".
If "had to be" is taken to mean is most probably and "earth-like" is using the unique ability of carbon to form a ridiculous variety of molecules then your question becomes:
Who ever said that extraterrestrial life was most probably carbon based?
And the answer to that is virtually every biologist who's ever thought about what alien life would look like at the bio-chemical level.
Given the choice between tackling the guy with a knife and letting him fly the plane where ever he wants, if I see the opportunity I'm gonna tackle the guy. They changed the rules with 9/11, a hijacking isn't an unplanned vacation to Liberia anymore, it's a death sentence in a lot of people's minds. Am I gonna bum rush the guy head on? Probably not, not unless it's looking like I'm dead either way, but he better not turn his back to me. The TSA has much more potent tools to ensure compliance than mere violence, we don't fight back against the TSA because even if we 'win' we lose (blacklisted, arrested, and shamed in public).
Lovelock's climate change, the stuff he predicted 30 years ago and which he's now saying was inaccurate, was the stuff of bad science fiction movies and bears very little resemblance to the actual predictions made by climate scientists. No serious climate scientist has ever predicted 90% of the worlds surface being uninhabitable. Compared to his predictions, the less than 1 degree C rise in temperatures we have seen is "nothing much", the problem is that 1 degree C is more than enough to screw up all kinds of stuff. It's just not enough to drive humanity to the brink of extinction like he predicted two decades ago.
The reason that filtering the videos is difficult is because they get rejected if the filter flags them. That encourages an arms race between the filtering software on one side and the users on the other, an arms race that the users are always going to win. If users aren't annoyed by the filtering there's nothing to encourage them to change the fingerprint of the video and writing a piece of filtering software, even with very high accuracy, becomes relatively simple.
#1 Love your kids. #2 Do the best you can. #3 Do what feels right to you and your family.
And I'm not just being a jackass, each of those points comes from 2 different directions and that's something a lot of people don't get.
Most parents get #1 pretty easily the day their kids are born but, and this is something no one likes to talk about, not everyone feels an instant connection to their newborn. If you don't feel it don't panic. The first days, weeks, and months are an emotional and hormonal roller coaster ride (yes, for both parents), you'll get there eventually if you stay involved.
#2 seems obvious too, just work your hardest right? But it goes the other way, don't try to force more out of yourself than your able to give. That means asking for and accepting help when you need it, it means letting the mess pile up in the kitchen so you can sleep for an extra half hour, it even means taking time for yourself every now and then so you don't go insane. In extreme cases, it means setting your crying baby in the crib and walking away for 10 minutes if it gets to be too much.
And #3, probably the only piece of 'real' advice out of the three. You don't have to follow other people's advice (not even mine)! Don't let anyone tell you how to be a parent. There's a million right ways to raise a child, and most of them can the the wrong way to raise a child just as easily so you may as well do it the way that feels right to you. You've got millions of years of parenting instincts living up in your brain, if advice contradicts those don't ignore it and blindly follow what someone is telling you. That doesn't mean don't read up on things, or solicit advice, or listen when your mother tells you how she used to do it, it just means don't feel like a bad parent if you don't want to follow them.
On the other hand, at least a patent troll (presumably) holds a real patent that the other company is infringing upon. Whereas Nest is saying Honeywell is just throwing litigation at them that Honeywell knows they can't win, in the hopes of either e generous settlement or keeping Nest out of the market long enough for Honeywell to reenforce their monopoly.
If you're mate is making decisions that you know are dangerous it's your duty as a parent to step up and fight and win that battle. Would you let them dangle the kid upside down off a second story balcony?
How many orders of magnitude? Ok, let's say that the odds of those amino acids forming a self replicating 'thing' are 1000000000000 less likely than the formation of the amino acids themselves. It took Miller-Urem 1 gallon of water and 1 week of time to produce virtual every amino acid required for life. Now instead of a gallon, you have the entire surface area of the Earth's oceans at the time. And instead of a week you have millions, if necessary billions of years. Every time someone talks about how bad the odds are for evolution or abiogenesis, I have to wonder if they are really thinking about what they're saying. Yes, the odds are going to be long. Very, very long. But so is the scale, both in size and time.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, just read this and think about what it says.
To put it simply, right and wrong are not binary conditions. Something can be "more right" or "less right". Evolution, like Newton's laws, may not be 100% be all end all perfect, but it is so much better than any other theory (or psuedotheory) that it is beyond rational debate.
Without evolution, nothing in biology beyond the 4th grade level makes sense. Morphology, Anatomy, Physiology, Cytology, Embryology, Ecology, Taxonomy, Genetics, Paleontology, Microbiology... nothing, nothing, nothing in any of those fields can be adequately explained without bearing evolution in mind. Debating evolution in a biology class is like debating Netwon's third law of motion while riding a rocket to the moon.
The fact is that rape is a double edge sword. It takes one person to force sex on someone and another person to resist. Without the resisting, there's no rape.
No, Jesse Jackson said he has a subconscious and shameful (to himself) fear of black youths in certain environments. This guy, said to his kids "Don't go where black people gather, if black people show up at an event leave, you are almost certainly smarter than any random black person you're going to meet, and black people in positions of authority deserve more scrutiny than their white counterparts". You don't see the difference?
And that right there is the difference difference. Everyone has prejudices, they're driven into our subconscious from day we're born to the day we die. Do you fight against them, consciously avoid letting them affect your decision making, feel shame over them? Or do you rationalize them with bad science, teach them to your children, and pretend that your prejudices are not only accurate, but also just?
I imagine there are other ways to give 'The Talk'. Any child knows by age 10 that life isn't fair, that isn't going to be news to them. Most likely, by age 10 they've seen enough TV to know that racism still exists in pockets and prejudice exists everywhere. Explaining to your children that the world isn't perfect and that there is always more work to be done should be part of every parent's job. It shouldn't kill their hope, it should empower them. "Look how far we've come! But look also how far we have to go."
Also conflating things, the placebo effect is stronger if you tell the recipient that there are side effects and list them off. Basically, whenever the patient becomes aware of experiencing one of the side effects it serves as a reminder that "I'm on that drug for my X", which increases the effect. In other words, drugs with more side effects are more likely to erroneously be shown effective.
Despite the fact that many religious fundamentalists use that argument, I've never been able to read it in anything other than a sarcastic, mocking tone of voice. Imagine if the government was in charge of distributing food and gave all the black people nutriloaf every day, while the rest of the country got delicious and varied meals. But it's fair! Because everyone has the right to eat what's given to them.
I have the right to marry the person that I love, I wouldn't deny anyone else that right simply because the person they love happens to have the same set of genitalia as they do.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty well established that exposure levels are given in units above the background. This isn't new. If you were taught how to read a geiger counter in high school the first thing they should have taught you was how to zero it out so the background levels (which are different from place to place) didn't affect your measurements. So no, no one is going to go through life with less than .1Sv, not if they make it to 40 anyway, but most people who don't work in radiation exposing occupations and don't get seriously ill will go through life without .1Sv of additional exposure, which is what the article is talking about.
Linked paper talks about hormesis, specifically about how it's a largely debunked theory that isn't taken seriously by anyone in the field any more. In fact, there's research that shows low level radiation being more harmful (in a relative, risk vs Sv exposed way) than less.
Exposure is always expressed in amounts over the background rate. So "Lower than background level" effectively means exposure to up to 2x the background level (background level + artificial); there's nothing illogical about being worried about it (though I wouldn't personally be concerned about a ~.0025 Sv per year exposure rate).
As for the rest of your comment, if you read the paper the summary links to, you'll see that all the evidence is pointing toward all exposure (presumably below radiation poisoning levels) carrying approximately the same relative risk. It doesn't matter high or low energy, it doesn't matter if you're exposed in 10 minutes or 10 years. Your total exposure level linearly maps to your risk of cancer (and, new information to me at least, heart attack and stroke).
Ah, but who guards Vimes? (and yes, for the record, I know the answer, I'm just setting you up)
I get my power from a nuclear power plant you insensitive clod!
Maybe the fact that it always seems 50 years away has something to do with this?
They said in 1978 that then current funding levels would never produce a viable power platform. To get one going by today would have required on average $2.5 billion per year by the fusion researchers' own estimates. Actual funding since 1978? $500 million per year. Quite blaming the science for the politicians shortsightedness.
Let's say worst case, and your self replicating nano machines can efficiently extract all then energy in a chemical bond and put it to use. Some, in fact a significant portion, of that energy is going to have to go toward reassembling the molecules into copies of your original nano machine. The rest will be used to break the chemical bonds of the next bit of raw materials.
So now you've got a grey goo outbreak, that freaking sucks. Assuming (again, we're going worst case here) that your replicating nano-machines can't be easily destroyed by high temperatures, water, or simple acids and bases, you're going to need to 'fight fire with fire'. So, you bring in your truck that you've had ready for just such a situation (because if we're advanced enough to make efficient, fast, temperature and water resistant nano machines we should know enough to be prepared). The truck has a tank of raw materials or just a tank of premade nano machines, except these nano machines aren't going to be wasting the majority of their energy budget trying to replicate themselves, they're mass produced at the factory (either on the truck or somewhere even more centralized).
Well that depends on what you mean by "earth-like" and what you mean by "had to be".
If "had to be" is taken to mean is most probably and "earth-like" is using the unique ability of carbon to form a ridiculous variety of molecules then your question becomes:
Who ever said that extraterrestrial life was most probably carbon based?
And the answer to that is virtually every biologist who's ever thought about what alien life would look like at the bio-chemical level.
Given the choice between tackling the guy with a knife and letting him fly the plane where ever he wants, if I see the opportunity I'm gonna tackle the guy. They changed the rules with 9/11, a hijacking isn't an unplanned vacation to Liberia anymore, it's a death sentence in a lot of people's minds. Am I gonna bum rush the guy head on? Probably not, not unless it's looking like I'm dead either way, but he better not turn his back to me. The TSA has much more potent tools to ensure compliance than mere violence, we don't fight back against the TSA because even if we 'win' we lose (blacklisted, arrested, and shamed in public).
Lovelock's climate change, the stuff he predicted 30 years ago and which he's now saying was inaccurate, was the stuff of bad science fiction movies and bears very little resemblance to the actual predictions made by climate scientists. No serious climate scientist has ever predicted 90% of the worlds surface being uninhabitable. Compared to his predictions, the less than 1 degree C rise in temperatures we have seen is "nothing much", the problem is that 1 degree C is more than enough to screw up all kinds of stuff. It's just not enough to drive humanity to the brink of extinction like he predicted two decades ago.
The reason that filtering the videos is difficult is because they get rejected if the filter flags them. That encourages an arms race between the filtering software on one side and the users on the other, an arms race that the users are always going to win. If users aren't annoyed by the filtering there's nothing to encourage them to change the fingerprint of the video and writing a piece of filtering software, even with very high accuracy, becomes relatively simple.
Could you explain what megawatts per day means?
By that logic Apple doesn't import any of their hardware into the US. After all, it's a US company paying the bills right?
You want some real advice?
#1 Love your kids.
#2 Do the best you can.
#3 Do what feels right to you and your family.
And I'm not just being a jackass, each of those points comes from 2 different directions and that's something a lot of people don't get.
Most parents get #1 pretty easily the day their kids are born but, and this is something no one likes to talk about, not everyone feels an instant connection to their newborn. If you don't feel it don't panic. The first days, weeks, and months are an emotional and hormonal roller coaster ride (yes, for both parents), you'll get there eventually if you stay involved.
#2 seems obvious too, just work your hardest right? But it goes the other way, don't try to force more out of yourself than your able to give. That means asking for and accepting help when you need it, it means letting the mess pile up in the kitchen so you can sleep for an extra half hour, it even means taking time for yourself every now and then so you don't go insane. In extreme cases, it means setting your crying baby in the crib and walking away for 10 minutes if it gets to be too much.
And #3, probably the only piece of 'real' advice out of the three. You don't have to follow other people's advice (not even mine)! Don't let anyone tell you how to be a parent. There's a million right ways to raise a child, and most of them can the the wrong way to raise a child just as easily so you may as well do it the way that feels right to you. You've got millions of years of parenting instincts living up in your brain, if advice contradicts those don't ignore it and blindly follow what someone is telling you. That doesn't mean don't read up on things, or solicit advice, or listen when your mother tells you how she used to do it, it just means don't feel like a bad parent if you don't want to follow them.
On the other hand, at least a patent troll (presumably) holds a real patent that the other company is infringing upon. Whereas Nest is saying Honeywell is just throwing litigation at them that Honeywell knows they can't win, in the hopes of either e generous settlement or keeping Nest out of the market long enough for Honeywell to reenforce their monopoly.
If you're mate is making decisions that you know are dangerous it's your duty as a parent to step up and fight and win that battle. Would you let them dangle the kid upside down off a second story balcony?
How many orders of magnitude? Ok, let's say that the odds of those amino acids forming a self replicating 'thing' are 1000000000000 less likely than the formation of the amino acids themselves. It took Miller-Urem 1 gallon of water and 1 week of time to produce virtual every amino acid required for life. Now instead of a gallon, you have the entire surface area of the Earth's oceans at the time. And instead of a week you have millions, if necessary billions of years. Every time someone talks about how bad the odds are for evolution or abiogenesis, I have to wonder if they are really thinking about what they're saying. Yes, the odds are going to be long. Very, very long. But so is the scale, both in size and time.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, just read this and think about what it says.
To put it simply, right and wrong are not binary conditions. Something can be "more right" or "less right". Evolution, like Newton's laws, may not be 100% be all end all perfect, but it is so much better than any other theory (or psuedotheory) that it is beyond rational debate.
Without evolution, nothing in biology beyond the 4th grade level makes sense. Morphology, Anatomy, Physiology, Cytology, Embryology, Ecology, Taxonomy, Genetics, Paleontology, Microbiology... nothing, nothing, nothing in any of those fields can be adequately explained without bearing evolution in mind. Debating evolution in a biology class is like debating Netwon's third law of motion while riding a rocket to the moon.
The fact is that rape is a double edge sword. It takes one person to force sex on someone and another person to resist. Without the resisting, there's no rape.
No, Jesse Jackson said he has a subconscious and shameful (to himself) fear of black youths in certain environments. This guy, said to his kids "Don't go where black people gather, if black people show up at an event leave, you are almost certainly smarter than any random black person you're going to meet, and black people in positions of authority deserve more scrutiny than their white counterparts". You don't see the difference?
"There is nothing more painful to me..."
And that right there is the difference difference. Everyone has prejudices, they're driven into our subconscious from day we're born to the day we die. Do you fight against them, consciously avoid letting them affect your decision making, feel shame over them? Or do you rationalize them with bad science, teach them to your children, and pretend that your prejudices are not only accurate, but also just?
I imagine there are other ways to give 'The Talk'. Any child knows by age 10 that life isn't fair, that isn't going to be news to them. Most likely, by age 10 they've seen enough TV to know that racism still exists in pockets and prejudice exists everywhere. Explaining to your children that the world isn't perfect and that there is always more work to be done should be part of every parent's job. It shouldn't kill their hope, it should empower them. "Look how far we've come! But look also how far we have to go."
Also conflating things, the placebo effect is stronger if you tell the recipient that there are side effects and list them off. Basically, whenever the patient becomes aware of experiencing one of the side effects it serves as a reminder that "I'm on that drug for my X", which increases the effect. In other words, drugs with more side effects are more likely to erroneously be shown effective.
Despite the fact that many religious fundamentalists use that argument, I've never been able to read it in anything other than a sarcastic, mocking tone of voice. Imagine if the government was in charge of distributing food and gave all the black people nutriloaf every day, while the rest of the country got delicious and varied meals. But it's fair! Because everyone has the right to eat what's given to them.
I have the right to marry the person that I love, I wouldn't deny anyone else that right simply because the person they love happens to have the same set of genitalia as they do.