All of these desktop vs. laptop vs. tablet vs. phone vs. etc. discussions imply that the computer is the focus when really it should be the interfaces. If my quadcore phone had methods to type and see the results as well as I can on my keyboard and multiple XX-inch monitors, I doubt that I'd have a need for anything else. For me, as my eyes fade and fingers age, the screens are also getting smaller and the keyboards need greater agility. Yea, progress!
Actually, radiation doesn't provide that much of the mutations. The studies on animals show a small mutation rate--ratioing down from the experimental exposures to a background exposure--compared to the natural rate of mutations. In humans, the effect has not been seen at all. To the third generation of decendents of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima survivors, there is no increased rate of birth defects. See the Bilogical Effects of Ionization Radiation reports (BEIR I - BEIR VI) for more.
True, but remember radiation increases the risk of cancer. Radiation does not give everyone cancer. Even for the atomic bomb survivors--the ones who got the greatest doses but still survived the blast effects--the majority never got cancer.The question is and always has been, what is the risk. We may not know what this number accurately is for low radiation doses, but we know it is not a large number. I as an individual will accecpt a very small risk. However, I as a regulator or planner must take that risk and multiply it among the affected population and then plan to accept (or prevent) those cancer deaths.
I am a radiation expert. Occupational instead of medical, but radiation is radiation and x-rays have the best understood physics. Theory says injury is proportional to dose. Dose is independant of type (i.e. 1 rem of gamma should give the same effect of 1 rem of x-ray.) So if this data is correct, we would see an obvious increase of brain tumours among occupational workers at these low levels (which we don't even among occupational x-ray workers) and increases tied to areas of increased background radiation.
Also, in the article, the study was retrospective, asking people if they remember having such dental procedures. From my work, I can say with confidence that people with cancer will always remember a cause for their cancer, particularly if it is phrased as "Do you remember being exposed to yada-yada as a child?" For a similar issue, look for cancer-from-transformer stories. Researchers asked if the people remembered living near elictrical transformers and those with cancer or cancer in their family remembered the transformers at a greater rate--leading to a statistical result similar to the one in this article.
There is no difference in removing radioactive materials from seawater than removing non-radioactive materials. Each atom of I-131 is exactly Iodine until that moment when it decides to decay and transform into Xenon-131, a stable isotope. This method may be useful only if it can remove contaminants at very low mass concentrations. The total amount of I-131 released at Fukushima is only around 100 grams, assuming the values in the news are correct. The reported concentration at one of the outfalls, at several thousand times the drinking water limits, works out to about 0.03 PPB.
My wife came up with the best multiverse theory I've heard. She said that if there are an infinite number of universes and everything that could happen happens in some universe, then there must be a universe somewhere without (the need for) a multiverse.
And if there is one, then it must be the one we're living in.
QED: No multiverse
Come on. Are we so jaded now that life-in-space research (even if it is just an amino acid found on a comet) is just ho-hum news? Speaking as one of the generation that sat up all night watching blurry images of men walking on the Moon, we did not expect this. Everything we knew then eliminated the bulk of the solar system as being able to support life. Sure, we did expect to be out to Jupiter by now but that we would already be on the verge of proving that life is not limited to this one planet is incredible. I just want to be around when the first critter comes skittering in front of a rover's camera.
My wife and I watch a lot of Netflix download movies, anything new that's halfway good plus I watch the older science fiction ones in the afternoon she doesn't care that much about. The ISP is DSL but the movies are very watchable on a 42" screen. (some stutter occasionally.) Plus, I surf YouTube, Reddit, Slashdot, etc. daily. About four months ago, my nephew put a hi def Slingbox in our house for his overseas tour of duty and it is on for a few hours every day. Luckily he is 13 hours away so he watches mostly in the AM when we're at work, we found we can't do both at once. My ISP has not said one word about it nor has there been any indication that we're causing problems. Sure, occasionally a bird will land on the phone wire and burst into flames, but that's about it.
The reflection of the x-rays is actually greater for skin than metal due to the elements--hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon shine brighter than iron. That's the basic trick used, to be able to see through higher number elements such as metals by looking only a type of relection called Compton Scattering. I did some more reading and I was _wrong_ about the penetration of the skin. The reason the risk is low is just that not much x-ray is used.
At the risk of being lost in the noise...
Not the same at all. X-rays pass through you and leave some deposited energy inside. (The least dose would be from an X-ray tuned so far up the spectrum that you appear totally invisible.) Gamma and other things from space that you're exposed to when you fly do essentially the same.
However, the backscatter X-rays are so soft that they only penetrate clothing and not very far (epidermis? dermis?) into you. If they deposit no energy inside the cells, there is no known mechanism that leads to damage (cancer, birth defects, cataracts, general life-shortening, etc.)
Oh please. I am a radiation expert in real life. I have been to Chernobyl. It is no more "eerily silent" there than it is in the non-contaminated areas. The surrounding area is mostly farmland and was cleared many years ago.
Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the plants and animals are just not as sensitive to radiation as the movies and sci fi shows suggest. That plus the fact that most of the isotopes released (iodine-131 for example) have long decayed away.
Humans are more sensitive to the effects of radiation than most other creatures. When we protect humans we end up protecting the environment.
That said, even though I full expect the plants to grow healthy in the downwind zone, I would not eat them for fear of further concentrating any remaining contamination they contain and raising my risk of cancer. But I don't smoke, either, for similar reasons.
What about Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon? Neither has had a movie or show that lived up to the original newspaper comics for originality or imagination. (Yes, I see the oxymoronic combination of 'reboot' and 'originality'.)
I appreciate and agree with his point, at least as far as I can tell. There are way too many articles out there to read. That's why I use the nonpersons to filter for topics that I care about and use the crowds or quick and sloppy readers to provide perspective and technical intrepetation. For example, I doubt that I would be interested in this book. Many thanks to the quick and sloppy readers for saving my time!
Or to stay there.
So far: soil that can grow asparagus, water, and now a source of oxygen. The hard part has always been getting back. Suppose we send someone who wishes to stay? (with maybe a little monkey friend.)
How about a default or definable subject line? For persons, it could be something like the sig lines and for companies, it could be a one sentence sales-speak.
This combined with speech recognition ought to be better then speech recognition alone...
Therefore it is quite probable that a speech recognition system can perform better with a lip reading module...
You would have two independent signals containing the same information. The errors in the audio signal would not be the same errors in the visual signal. Sum the two signals for a stronger information-to-noise ratio. If it were done correctly, any visual clue should improve the ability to intrepet the audible speech, just as people do by watching the mouth of the speaker in a noisy environment. (Did that word begin with a "b" or a "d"?)
Slashdot Mirror
So every time someone gets an answer from this, 31 other universes are created and have the incorrect answers?
All of these desktop vs. laptop vs. tablet vs. phone vs. etc. discussions imply that the computer is the focus when really it should be the interfaces. If my quadcore phone had methods to type and see the results as well as I can on my keyboard and multiple XX-inch monitors, I doubt that I'd have a need for anything else. For me, as my eyes fade and fingers age, the screens are also getting smaller and the keyboards need greater agility. Yea, progress!
Actually, radiation doesn't provide that much of the mutations. The studies on animals show a small mutation rate--ratioing down from the experimental exposures to a background exposure--compared to the natural rate of mutations. In humans, the effect has not been seen at all. To the third generation of decendents of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima survivors, there is no increased rate of birth defects. See the Bilogical Effects of Ionization Radiation reports (BEIR I - BEIR VI) for more.
True, but remember radiation increases the risk of cancer. Radiation does not give everyone cancer. Even for the atomic bomb survivors--the ones who got the greatest doses but still survived the blast effects--the majority never got cancer.The question is and always has been, what is the risk. We may not know what this number accurately is for low radiation doses, but we know it is not a large number. I as an individual will accecpt a very small risk. However, I as a regulator or planner must take that risk and multiply it among the affected population and then plan to accept (or prevent) those cancer deaths.
I am a radiation expert. Occupational instead of medical, but radiation is radiation and x-rays have the best understood physics. Theory says injury is proportional to dose. Dose is independant of type (i.e. 1 rem of gamma should give the same effect of 1 rem of x-ray.) So if this data is correct, we would see an obvious increase of brain tumours among occupational workers at these low levels (which we don't even among occupational x-ray workers) and increases tied to areas of increased background radiation. Also, in the article, the study was retrospective, asking people if they remember having such dental procedures. From my work, I can say with confidence that people with cancer will always remember a cause for their cancer, particularly if it is phrased as "Do you remember being exposed to yada-yada as a child?" For a similar issue, look for cancer-from-transformer stories. Researchers asked if the people remembered living near elictrical transformers and those with cancer or cancer in their family remembered the transformers at a greater rate--leading to a statistical result similar to the one in this article.
Collectively, these studies tell me one very important thing: If there is an effect, it is not a large one. And not worth worrying about.
There is no difference in removing radioactive materials from seawater than removing non-radioactive materials. Each atom of I-131 is exactly Iodine until that moment when it decides to decay and transform into Xenon-131, a stable isotope. This method may be useful only if it can remove contaminants at very low mass concentrations. The total amount of I-131 released at Fukushima is only around 100 grams, assuming the values in the news are correct. The reported concentration at one of the outfalls, at several thousand times the drinking water limits, works out to about 0.03 PPB.
My wife came up with the best multiverse theory I've heard. She said that if there are an infinite number of universes and everything that could happen happens in some universe, then there must be a universe somewhere without (the need for) a multiverse. And if there is one, then it must be the one we're living in. QED: No multiverse
Come on. Are we so jaded now that life-in-space research (even if it is just an amino acid found on a comet) is just ho-hum news? Speaking as one of the generation that sat up all night watching blurry images of men walking on the Moon, we did not expect this. Everything we knew then eliminated the bulk of the solar system as being able to support life. Sure, we did expect to be out to Jupiter by now but that we would already be on the verge of proving that life is not limited to this one planet is incredible. I just want to be around when the first critter comes skittering in front of a rover's camera.
My wife and I watch a lot of Netflix download movies, anything new that's halfway good plus I watch the older science fiction ones in the afternoon she doesn't care that much about. The ISP is DSL but the movies are very watchable on a 42" screen. (some stutter occasionally.) Plus, I surf YouTube, Reddit, Slashdot, etc. daily. About four months ago, my nephew put a hi def Slingbox in our house for his overseas tour of duty and it is on for a few hours every day. Luckily he is 13 hours away so he watches mostly in the AM when we're at work, we found we can't do both at once. My ISP has not said one word about it nor has there been any indication that we're causing problems. Sure, occasionally a bird will land on the phone wire and burst into flames, but that's about it.
The reflection of the x-rays is actually greater for skin than metal due to the elements--hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon shine brighter than iron. That's the basic trick used, to be able to see through higher number elements such as metals by looking only a type of relection called Compton Scattering. I did some more reading and I was _wrong_ about the penetration of the skin. The reason the risk is low is just that not much x-ray is used.
At the risk of being lost in the noise... Not the same at all. X-rays pass through you and leave some deposited energy inside. (The least dose would be from an X-ray tuned so far up the spectrum that you appear totally invisible.) Gamma and other things from space that you're exposed to when you fly do essentially the same. However, the backscatter X-rays are so soft that they only penetrate clothing and not very far (epidermis? dermis?) into you. If they deposit no energy inside the cells, there is no known mechanism that leads to damage (cancer, birth defects, cataracts, general life-shortening, etc.)
Is the site melting or do I just need Chrome?
Oh please. I am a radiation expert in real life. I have been to Chernobyl. It is no more "eerily silent" there than it is in the non-contaminated areas. The surrounding area is mostly farmland and was cleared many years ago. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the plants and animals are just not as sensitive to radiation as the movies and sci fi shows suggest. That plus the fact that most of the isotopes released (iodine-131 for example) have long decayed away. Humans are more sensitive to the effects of radiation than most other creatures. When we protect humans we end up protecting the environment. That said, even though I full expect the plants to grow healthy in the downwind zone, I would not eat them for fear of further concentrating any remaining contamination they contain and raising my risk of cancer. But I don't smoke, either, for similar reasons.
Buzz Off?
What about Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon? Neither has had a movie or show that lived up to the original newspaper comics for originality or imagination. (Yes, I see the oxymoronic combination of 'reboot' and 'originality'.)
I appreciate and agree with his point, at least as far as I can tell. There are way too many articles out there to read. That's why I use the nonpersons to filter for topics that I care about and use the crowds or quick and sloppy readers to provide perspective and technical intrepetation. For example, I doubt that I would be interested in this book. Many thanks to the quick and sloppy readers for saving my time!
Or to stay there. So far: soil that can grow asparagus, water, and now a source of oxygen. The hard part has always been getting back. Suppose we send someone who wishes to stay? (with maybe a little monkey friend.)
Users will be midorithorians?
How about a default or definable subject line? For persons, it could be something like the sig lines and for companies, it could be a one sentence sales-speak.
What about the Echelon copies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
This combined with speech recognition ought to be better then speech recognition alone...
Therefore it is quite probable that a speech recognition system can perform better with a lip reading module...
You would have two independent signals containing the same information. The errors in the audio signal would not be the same errors in the visual signal. Sum the two signals for a stronger information-to-noise ratio. If it were done correctly, any visual clue should improve the ability to intrepet the audible speech, just as people do by watching the mouth of the speaker in a noisy environment. (Did that word begin with a "b" or a "d"?)
When the "mastermind" is arrested, does a botnet die or continue some sort of pointless frankenstenian existence?