Yes, basically that. Holographic film is photographic film with a resolution high enough to capture the interference pattern between the reference laser and the reflected one; this pattern created diffraction gratings which made the 3D image afterwards. Some companies dedicated some time per year on their facilities for holographic, and that was enough to feed the small holo market. Holo film costed a premium, of course, but it was still feasible. Now nobody manufactures regular film anymore; if they were to keep the facilities doing just holographic, the cost would be absurd, so they just close down the factories and holography dies.
Most labs saw this coming, though, and have lots of film in stock. Unfortunately, the film doesn't last forever, and in a few years it will really die. Maybe someone will find a feasible way to make film in a lab, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Fortran (at least up to Fortran77) uses "=" just for assignment. For comparisons we have to use (x.eq.y). The system works pretty well, and much simpler than C. However, typing.eq.,.ne.,.gt.,.and., etc at every logical group is a royal pain in the ass.
Have you ever seen the prices for dedicated connections? Compare the cost of a T3 line with your common 50Mbps residential fiber.
No ISP in the planet designs their network so that all their customers can use the full bandwidth allocated to them at the same time: They'd have to charge a lot more than everybody else, so nobody would use them; and most of their infrastructure would remain unused all the time, since most users don't keep using their full bandwidth all the time; they usually do so for short bursts (get a page, stream a video, etc), and those bursts don't overlap for all of them at the same time.
Now, the ISP should sell the capacity so that the probability of someone not having their full paid bandwidth (or, say, something like 90% of the advertized bandwidth) available at a given moment is small. The difference is how they define "small", which may go from "0.1% of the users won't have the full amount available at some moment during the day" to "20% of the users will have to do with ~50% of the advertized bandwidth at peak hours". This is what differentiates well-structured ISPs and those who oversold.
The paper is pretty crappy, actually. I sorta-read it, and saw they talking about a "BS Model". Only later I realized the authors are I. Bezsudnov and . Snarskii. Please people, don't name your model after yourself. If it catches on, someone might do that; if you do it in the paper you present the model, you're an ass and you won't be taken seriously.
Their model predicts a bonus in lifetime to all civilizations in a "cluster" when a new civilization joins it. This could be extended to negative values (as in "hey, let's kill them bastards!"). The model is pretty simplistic, they have base lifetimes of the order of 7 cycles and the bonus of the order of 30; pretty unrealistic. Most of the argumentation is weak, with gems like "[the Drake equation] is product (sic) of various probabilities or, more likely, 'improbabilities'". It's badly written (I'm not talking about the grammatical errors that you can expect, English is not their first language; I'm talking about clarity of ideas and well-expressed thought processes), it cites Wikipedia, it's full of dubious exclamations ("While this fact did not happened (sic) yet, unfortunately, or to be more precise we are not included yet in this global process which, probably, (sic) already going on!" And yes, that's the full sentence), it's full of hand weaving, etc etc etc. Maybe I'm expecting too much from a preprint on pop-ph, but this one fails in everything.
But you can pair your phone to an external Bluetooth GPS unit (at least Ovi Maps lets me do so, don't know about Google). Also note that you'd normally download the maps for the region you expect to use your GPS through WiFi, and not on the road (which was the major "problem" they found with Ovi). If you remove the extra time they took to download the maps on Ovi due to sheer incompetence, it performed on par with TomTom. Slower than Google, but with the added benefit of not requiring data at all.
I'd say Nokia and Google offering free navigation is somewhat like all phones offering somewhat decent cameras. You won't replace all GPSs with phones, just like even a Nokia N8 won't replace a Canon 1Dmk4 or an ultrazoom compact; but for most people in most situations, the phone will be enough (just like there's no point in carrying an extra supercompact camera if you have a good camera phone).
In every phone, it's not "touch this spot and your call is gone", it's "cover the antenna and the signal goes down". Remember that water absorbs microwaves, so your hand (~60% water) will attenuate the signal. Even with the iPhone 4, if you don't touch the exact spot but cover all of the GSM/HSPA antenna, your signal will drop. In my old Nokia E62, I can get a ~15 dBm drop if I cover the whole top of the phone with my hand. Notice that most (non-touchscreen) phones have their antennas on the top because of this: you usually don't hold your phone there, so you won't attenuate the signal. Touchscreen phones are a different beast, because they're made to be used both in portrait and landscape modes; in landscape, you do touch the "top" of the phone. That means you need either a bigger antenna, or two antennas (like the Droid X). A bigger antenna on the bottom is used sometimes, because that's not where you usually hold the phone when in landscape mode. Problems with signal attenuation are very common (and more so with touch phones), but that's not the issue with the iPhone 4.
The issue with the iPhone 4 is that you can introduce a very high level of noise by bridging two separate antennas by touching the phone in a place where you would usually touch it. External antennas very close together are the problem. The noise added is what makes you drop calls, not the signal attenuation (you get so much noise that the phone can't find the signal). No other phones have this problem. Antenna design is one area where there are thousands of very smart people trying to get even the smallest improvements. You'd think someone would have thought about putting the antenna outside the phone on the past 10 years, if it was viable. Apple tried (and with some improvements, it could even become viable some day), and now they realize why nobody did it before.
Apple is trying to make their issue (the basic antenna design) look like the common issue (water absorbs microwaves). There's nothing you can do about signal attenuation, except keeping the antenna as far away from your hand as possible; but Apple could have designed the phone differently, and reduce the possibility to bridge the two antennas. The iPhone 4 problem is nothing like the problems other phones show, despite showing the same symptoms (lower call quality, possibility to drop calls, etc).
Why would we raze the rainforest for sugar cane? Sugar cane doesn't like the soil from there. It loves the soil from the northeastern littoral and the southeastern plains. The rainforests in the northeast were razed centuries ago, and the southeast plains were never real forests. The real gold is in the north, in the Amazon; and its soil is awful for anything. Really. The rainforest only lives because dead trees/animals provide plenty of fertilization and the tall trees with deep roots prevent the rain from washing the soil. Remove the trees and the soil will be promptly washed away, and you won't be able to grow anything even for a single season. It promptly becomes a desert. This happened on the places where the trees get illegally razed for lumber, which then proceed to be exported to the USA and the EU.
Even if you could grow sugarcane in the Amazon, it would still be stupid. The consumers are in São Paulo/Rio de Janeiro/Minas Gerais/Brasília, which is on the other side of the country AND very near both the best soil for sugarcane and most of the ethanol plants. If you tried to sell your ethanol produced in the Amazon here, you would never be able to compete on price and would go bankrupt very soon.
Seriously, this "OMG Ethanol is killing the rainforests!!!" bullshit that people pass around makes me very sad. It obviously comes directly from the big petrol companies who don't like the change in their status quo, but even smart people can't tell the difference and just keep repeating it without checking their facts. The point is that a new technology is making their business model, and it looks like they aren't adapting; just spreading FUD to try to stop the unavoidable. Looks very much like another industry that the Internet loves to hate, actually.
The first iPhone wasn't a smartphone, at least until Apple developed a full native API. Yeah, the technical definition doesn't match the marketing definition; just like, by definition, my Mac is a Personal Computer (PC), but marketing makes "PC" and "Mac" sound like complete opposites.
S60 (in its 5th edition) was renamed Symbian^1. It's the point where current Symbian started. It's absolutely NOT dead at all. S40, on the other hand, isn't Symbian and isn't a smartphone OS, so I have no idea on why you mention it here.
Nokia currently sells, from cheaper to most expensive, lots of S40 dumbphones, lots of Symbian S60 smartphones and a tiny amount of Maemo-based smartphones. They are pushing Symbian S60 (now called just Symbian) down: they will have full smartphones being sold for the same price as others sell dumbphones with the same (or similar) hardware, in the mid-end. S40 dumbphones will be just the lowest end. So they will sell a few ultracheap S40 dumbphones, a crapload of Symbian smartphones, and a few Meego-based (Meego == Maemo + Intel's Moblin) smartphones.
People aren't seeing this. Nokia is increasing the smartphone market, so that people will be able to get good smartphones at $200 (before unsubsidies). These consumers will go up for their next phones. People really aren't seeing the situation, and seem to just believe the hype.
You probably moved the sound recorder. You can move it back to wherever you want through the menu that comes from the left soft key. Also, if I understood well what you're saying, take some time to look at Tools -> Settings -> Phone Settings -> Standby mode.
I spent countless hours in attempts to getting the SDK up and running for Symbian.
My programming experience with Symbian has been very positive. I bypassed the whole SymbianC++ clusterfuck and went to Python. Can't use it for a high performance game, sure, but all you have to do to start up is installing the framework on your phone. Your first "hello world" can't take more than a few minutes after that.
- Firstly there is S40, S60 and countless other types of symbian devices.
Actually, there's only Symbian. S40 isn't a smartphone OS and isn't related to Symbian in any way; and UIQ, Series80 and Series90 are completely dead. Symbian now is the evolution of what was called S60.
- Then there are versions to each of S40, S60 etc.
If you want to target any device that is on the market now (and that has been on the market for the past 3 years), all you have is the touchscreen Symbian^1 and the non-touch S60v3. Develop for S60v3 (or S60 3rd edition) and any Symbian device can run your program; develop for Symbian^1 (also called S60v5, or S60 5th edition) and any touchscreen Symbian can run your program.
I think he means, this solution's cost is negligible compared to the cost of any product where you could use it. Say regular contacts would cost you $0.01; this costs three times as much, which is $0.03. Won't change much for your $50.00 camera.
I'd say it's a problem with scientific journalism. Science reporting is what scientists do on scientific magazines; scientific journalism is what journalists do on "science" columns of regular papers/magazines/channels/sites/whatever. But yeah, that's semantics.
That's more of a problem with journalists, actually. Someone writes a paper, say, on "50 ml of coffee every day increases the memory abilities of people with AB-type blood". To journalists, this means "NEWSFLASH: Science Says Coffee Makes You Smarter!!!!!". Then, someone else writes another paper: "200ml of coffee every day increases the chance of a heart attack on heavy smokers"; journalists turn that to "NEWSFLASH: Beware! Coffee Can Kill You, Say Scientists!"
The main problem is that people should need some sort of basic scientific training to report on science news. Scientists sometimes may be guilty of being too naïve when explaining their work to journalists. This happened with quantum entanglement effects, where someone may have told a journalist (when working on first principles of entanglement, or an early experiment) that "this works as if we have teleported the particle from one side to the other"; the journalist turned that to "Physicists discover Star Trek-style teleportation!!!". Another example, more recent, happened with some people who modeled the quantum vacuum in a curved spacetime, and they found that this vacuum state could have more energy than we had imagined (and that this vacuum energy can "clump" in some points). Journalists saw the paper, interviewed them, and made a headline out of it: "Physicists Discover a Way To Create Energy Out Of Nothing!!"
Free browsers can support H.264 through system-wide codecs. Mozilla isn't going to do it and they give you an excuse when you ask them why not: they say Windows Vista/XP users don't have the codec preinstalled (and neither do they have Flash preinstalled, but that's apparently not a problem). Then they have a Stallmanistic desire for a completely free environment, and say they won't use support already present in your system, and for which you already paid (either directly or through your OS license). Other free projects, like Chromium, have no such problems.
Mozilla is positioning itself as the only loser in this. They say they won't sacrifice freedom for anything, but they already sacrificed lots of Firefox's principles now (lightness and speed come to mind). Refusing to use the support that is already in the system would be as stupid as blocking sites or plugins because they don't convey the exact same mentality as the project. Imagine if Firefox blocked ubuntu.com because Ubuntu isn't a 100% free OS and, therefore, people should stay out of it.
For your last point, anyone is free to make an implementation of a browser supporting H.264. You may call gstreamer/QT/DShow or you can license it directly and write your own codec. I see the point in putting the freedom of the code above the freedom of the developers, but when you take away the freedom from the user (to use the video support he paid for) because of the freedom of the code, that's a real issue.
Well, if someone made a port of Halo (using the same name, which also happens to be a common word) for the PS3, I'm sure Microsoft would kill them in court. Notice that people CAN legally play Lemmings on recenthardware, so availability isn't an issue and the brand isn't dead.
The problem goes a bit deeper than this. CPT invariance is mathematically equivalent to Poincaré invariance. Breaking CPT means breaking symmetry under the Poincaré group (which is basically all translations, relativistic boosts and rotations). This is specially intriguing because particles are defined as irreducible representations of the Poincaré group. In other words, if Poincaré (or CPT) is broken, we cannot define a particle. This is one of the main problems with compatibility between quantum field theory and general relativity: in curved spacetimes there is no Poincaré symmetry, so there is no unambiguous definition of a particle and all hell breaks loose: even the definition of vacuum can't be done.
If those MINOS results are confirmed (and I assume they won't) QFT won't just needs adjustments: it will be wrong in a conceptual level. That would be VERY interesting, to say the least...
Not directly. IceCube in fact detects the Cherenkov radiation emitted by high energy muons when travelling on ice. It works as a neutrino detector because muons, despite having quite a long range, can't travel through the Earth; so a muon coming from "below" was necessarily created near the detector, and the only particle that exists freely, can cross the Earth and has a high enough cross section for muon creation is a muon-neutrino. Neutralinos can create muons through some processes in some models, but the effect would be completely obfuscated by neutrino-induced events.
However, they can detect neutralinos (and other dark matter particles) indirectly. For a given particle to be considered as a dark matter candidate, it needs to be affected by gravitational fields. Therefore, any dark matter particle would accumulate on any large gravitational field, such as the galaxy centre or the Sun. In most models (and certainly for neutralinos), two dark matter particles could annihilate mutually, creating other, less massive particles; in almost every one of those decay modes, there are neutrinos in the final state. So, if the dark matter really exists and it's composed of neutralinos, we predict a flux of neutrinos coming from the Sun (with an energy well above those that come from the normal nuclear fusion), from the galaxy centre, and even from the centre of the Earth. These fluxes (or at least the one from the Sun) can be detected given enough time, at least for some possible dark matter models. Halzen and Hooper have a very good paper on this (Halzen, BTW, is one of the top heads for IceCube).
"Telescope" is used by astronomers and physicists in this sense: an instrument to study the sky. So, COBE/WMAP/Planck were microwave telescopes, Auger is a cosmic ray telescope, and IceCube is a neutrino telescope. The word was borrowed from optical telescopes to radio/x-ray telescopes, and from there to everything else. IceCube researchers call it a neutrino telescope, it's not an error by the article.
Yes, that is why it detects "specially" what comes from below the horizon (or from the northern sky). However, they have some sensitivity to downgoing neutrinos (coming from above the horizon, or from the southern sky), if they arrive with an energy so high that the atmospheric muon background at those energies would be negligible. Or, being more technically correct, they use an array of cosmic ray detectors in the surface to identify if an event whose energy is above a certain threshold and coming from "above" them (from the Southern sky) is due to a cosmic ray or to a neutrino.
They will detect orders of magnitude more neutrinos from the north, but (if the flux is high enough) we can expect a few events from the south. Since their energy has to be very high, their direction can be measured very well, so you get an "image" of the southern sky. Of course, KM3NET (when built in the northern hemisphere) will do a better image of the southern sky, but we have to take what we have right now.
It's ability to trace the sky using a carrier that was never explored in this way (except to "see" what happens in the sun, and during a nearby supernova).
Using optical telescopes, we can get an image of how the universe looks in visible photons. In an x-ray telescope, we get an image of the universe in x-ray photons. In a cosmic ray telescope, we get an image in charged particles. IceCube (plus its northern sister, KM3Net) should be able to get an image of the universe in neutrinos with energies over 1 TeV.
Your eyes are a "telescope". We usually reserve the word for instruments that let us examine astrophysical objects in a way that we can't do with our naked eyes, but an optical telescope works in exactly the same way as your eyes. Just change the retina for a CCD.
It's omni-directional. The detectors are placed in a way that it can detect the arrival of neutrinos coming from any direction (including, and specially, from below the horizon). This way, we can get a "whole sky" image at once, without moving anything in the experiment.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, basically that. Holographic film is photographic film with a resolution high enough to capture the interference pattern between the reference laser and the reflected one; this pattern created diffraction gratings which made the 3D image afterwards. Some companies dedicated some time per year on their facilities for holographic, and that was enough to feed the small holo market. Holo film costed a premium, of course, but it was still feasible. Now nobody manufactures regular film anymore; if they were to keep the facilities doing just holographic, the cost would be absurd, so they just close down the factories and holography dies.
Most labs saw this coming, though, and have lots of film in stock. Unfortunately, the film doesn't last forever, and in a few years it will really die. Maybe someone will find a feasible way to make film in a lab, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Fortran (at least up to Fortran77) uses "=" just for assignment. For comparisons we have to use (x.eq.y). The system works pretty well, and much simpler than C. However, typing .eq., .ne., .gt., .and., etc at every logical group is a royal pain in the ass.
Have you ever seen the prices for dedicated connections? Compare the cost of a T3 line with your common 50Mbps residential fiber.
No ISP in the planet designs their network so that all their customers can use the full bandwidth allocated to them at the same time: They'd have to charge a lot more than everybody else, so nobody would use them; and most of their infrastructure would remain unused all the time, since most users don't keep using their full bandwidth all the time; they usually do so for short bursts (get a page, stream a video, etc), and those bursts don't overlap for all of them at the same time.
Now, the ISP should sell the capacity so that the probability of someone not having their full paid bandwidth (or, say, something like 90% of the advertized bandwidth) available at a given moment is small. The difference is how they define "small", which may go from "0.1% of the users won't have the full amount available at some moment during the day" to "20% of the users will have to do with ~50% of the advertized bandwidth at peak hours". This is what differentiates well-structured ISPs and those who oversold.
The paper is pretty crappy, actually. I sorta-read it, and saw they talking about a "BS Model". Only later I realized the authors are I. Bezsudnov and . Snarskii. Please people, don't name your model after yourself. If it catches on, someone might do that; if you do it in the paper you present the model, you're an ass and you won't be taken seriously.
Their model predicts a bonus in lifetime to all civilizations in a "cluster" when a new civilization joins it. This could be extended to negative values (as in "hey, let's kill them bastards!"). The model is pretty simplistic, they have base lifetimes of the order of 7 cycles and the bonus of the order of 30; pretty unrealistic. Most of the argumentation is weak, with gems like "[the Drake equation] is product (sic) of various probabilities or, more likely, 'improbabilities'". It's badly written (I'm not talking about the grammatical errors that you can expect, English is not their first language; I'm talking about clarity of ideas and well-expressed thought processes), it cites Wikipedia, it's full of dubious exclamations ("While this fact did not happened (sic) yet, unfortunately, or to be more precise we are not included yet in this global process which, probably, (sic) already going on!" And yes, that's the full sentence), it's full of hand weaving, etc etc etc. Maybe I'm expecting too much from a preprint on pop-ph, but this one fails in everything.
But you can pair your phone to an external Bluetooth GPS unit (at least Ovi Maps lets me do so, don't know about Google). Also note that you'd normally download the maps for the region you expect to use your GPS through WiFi, and not on the road (which was the major "problem" they found with Ovi). If you remove the extra time they took to download the maps on Ovi due to sheer incompetence, it performed on par with TomTom. Slower than Google, but with the added benefit of not requiring data at all.
I'd say Nokia and Google offering free navigation is somewhat like all phones offering somewhat decent cameras. You won't replace all GPSs with phones, just like even a Nokia N8 won't replace a Canon 1Dmk4 or an ultrazoom compact; but for most people in most situations, the phone will be enough (just like there's no point in carrying an extra supercompact camera if you have a good camera phone).
In every phone, it's not "touch this spot and your call is gone", it's "cover the antenna and the signal goes down". Remember that water absorbs microwaves, so your hand (~60% water) will attenuate the signal. Even with the iPhone 4, if you don't touch the exact spot but cover all of the GSM/HSPA antenna, your signal will drop. In my old Nokia E62, I can get a ~15 dBm drop if I cover the whole top of the phone with my hand. Notice that most (non-touchscreen) phones have their antennas on the top because of this: you usually don't hold your phone there, so you won't attenuate the signal. Touchscreen phones are a different beast, because they're made to be used both in portrait and landscape modes; in landscape, you do touch the "top" of the phone. That means you need either a bigger antenna, or two antennas (like the Droid X). A bigger antenna on the bottom is used sometimes, because that's not where you usually hold the phone when in landscape mode. Problems with signal attenuation are very common (and more so with touch phones), but that's not the issue with the iPhone 4.
The issue with the iPhone 4 is that you can introduce a very high level of noise by bridging two separate antennas by touching the phone in a place where you would usually touch it. External antennas very close together are the problem. The noise added is what makes you drop calls, not the signal attenuation (you get so much noise that the phone can't find the signal). No other phones have this problem. Antenna design is one area where there are thousands of very smart people trying to get even the smallest improvements. You'd think someone would have thought about putting the antenna outside the phone on the past 10 years, if it was viable. Apple tried (and with some improvements, it could even become viable some day), and now they realize why nobody did it before.
Apple is trying to make their issue (the basic antenna design) look like the common issue (water absorbs microwaves). There's nothing you can do about signal attenuation, except keeping the antenna as far away from your hand as possible; but Apple could have designed the phone differently, and reduce the possibility to bridge the two antennas. The iPhone 4 problem is nothing like the problems other phones show, despite showing the same symptoms (lower call quality, possibility to drop calls, etc).
Nope, that's 32-bit only. The "64 bit" .DEB they offer contains only this executable:
$ ar -x skype-ubuntu-intrepid_2.1.0.81-1_amd64.deb && tar -xf data.tar.gz && file usr/bin/*
usr/bin/skype: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.8, stripped
They only make it installable on 64 bit system through the package manager. It's still compiled for 32 bits only.
Why would we raze the rainforest for sugar cane? Sugar cane doesn't like the soil from there. It loves the soil from the northeastern littoral and the southeastern plains. The rainforests in the northeast were razed centuries ago, and the southeast plains were never real forests. The real gold is in the north, in the Amazon; and its soil is awful for anything. Really. The rainforest only lives because dead trees/animals provide plenty of fertilization and the tall trees with deep roots prevent the rain from washing the soil. Remove the trees and the soil will be promptly washed away, and you won't be able to grow anything even for a single season. It promptly becomes a desert. This happened on the places where the trees get illegally razed for lumber, which then proceed to be exported to the USA and the EU.
Even if you could grow sugarcane in the Amazon, it would still be stupid. The consumers are in São Paulo/Rio de Janeiro/Minas Gerais/Brasília, which is on the other side of the country AND very near both the best soil for sugarcane and most of the ethanol plants. If you tried to sell your ethanol produced in the Amazon here, you would never be able to compete on price and would go bankrupt very soon.
Seriously, this "OMG Ethanol is killing the rainforests!!!" bullshit that people pass around makes me very sad. It obviously comes directly from the big petrol companies who don't like the change in their status quo, but even smart people can't tell the difference and just keep repeating it without checking their facts. The point is that a new technology is making their business model, and it looks like they aren't adapting; just spreading FUD to try to stop the unavoidable. Looks very much like another industry that the Internet loves to hate, actually.
The first iPhone wasn't a smartphone, at least until Apple developed a full native API. Yeah, the technical definition doesn't match the marketing definition; just like, by definition, my Mac is a Personal Computer (PC), but marketing makes "PC" and "Mac" sound like complete opposites.
S60 (in its 5th edition) was renamed Symbian^1. It's the point where current Symbian started. It's absolutely NOT dead at all. S40, on the other hand, isn't Symbian and isn't a smartphone OS, so I have no idea on why you mention it here.
Nokia currently sells, from cheaper to most expensive, lots of S40 dumbphones, lots of Symbian S60 smartphones and a tiny amount of Maemo-based smartphones. They are pushing Symbian S60 (now called just Symbian) down: they will have full smartphones being sold for the same price as others sell dumbphones with the same (or similar) hardware, in the mid-end. S40 dumbphones will be just the lowest end. So they will sell a few ultracheap S40 dumbphones, a crapload of Symbian smartphones, and a few Meego-based (Meego == Maemo + Intel's Moblin) smartphones.
People aren't seeing this. Nokia is increasing the smartphone market, so that people will be able to get good smartphones at $200 (before unsubsidies). These consumers will go up for their next phones. People really aren't seeing the situation, and seem to just believe the hype.
You probably moved the sound recorder. You can move it back to wherever you want through the menu that comes from the left soft key. Also, if I understood well what you're saying, take some time to look at Tools -> Settings -> Phone Settings -> Standby mode.
I spent countless hours in attempts to getting the SDK up and running for Symbian.
My programming experience with Symbian has been very positive. I bypassed the whole SymbianC++ clusterfuck and went to Python. Can't use it for a high performance game, sure, but all you have to do to start up is installing the framework on your phone. Your first "hello world" can't take more than a few minutes after that.
- Firstly there is S40, S60 and countless other types of symbian devices.
Actually, there's only Symbian. S40 isn't a smartphone OS and isn't related to Symbian in any way; and UIQ, Series80 and Series90 are completely dead. Symbian now is the evolution of what was called S60.
- Then there are versions to each of S40, S60 etc.
If you want to target any device that is on the market now (and that has been on the market for the past 3 years), all you have is the touchscreen Symbian^1 and the non-touch S60v3. Develop for S60v3 (or S60 3rd edition) and any Symbian device can run your program; develop for Symbian^1 (also called S60v5, or S60 5th edition) and any touchscreen Symbian can run your program.
I think he means, this solution's cost is negligible compared to the cost of any product where you could use it. Say regular contacts would cost you $0.01; this costs three times as much, which is $0.03. Won't change much for your $50.00 camera.
I'd say it's a problem with scientific journalism. Science reporting is what scientists do on scientific magazines; scientific journalism is what journalists do on "science" columns of regular papers/magazines/channels/sites/whatever. But yeah, that's semantics.
That's more of a problem with journalists, actually. Someone writes a paper, say, on "50 ml of coffee every day increases the memory abilities of people with AB-type blood". To journalists, this means "NEWSFLASH: Science Says Coffee Makes You Smarter!!!!!". Then, someone else writes another paper: "200ml of coffee every day increases the chance of a heart attack on heavy smokers"; journalists turn that to "NEWSFLASH: Beware! Coffee Can Kill You, Say Scientists!"
The main problem is that people should need some sort of basic scientific training to report on science news. Scientists sometimes may be guilty of being too naïve when explaining their work to journalists. This happened with quantum entanglement effects, where someone may have told a journalist (when working on first principles of entanglement, or an early experiment) that "this works as if we have teleported the particle from one side to the other"; the journalist turned that to "Physicists discover Star Trek-style teleportation!!!". Another example, more recent, happened with some people who modeled the quantum vacuum in a curved spacetime, and they found that this vacuum state could have more energy than we had imagined (and that this vacuum energy can "clump" in some points). Journalists saw the paper, interviewed them, and made a headline out of it: "Physicists Discover a Way To Create Energy Out Of Nothing!!"
" Damn Vulnerable Linux unknown"
It's based on Debbian and Knoppix. See: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=damnsmall
Actually, that's Damn Small Linux. Damn Vulnerable Linux is Slackware/Slax-based, at least according to this
Free browsers can support H.264 through system-wide codecs. Mozilla isn't going to do it and they give you an excuse when you ask them why not: they say Windows Vista/XP users don't have the codec preinstalled (and neither do they have Flash preinstalled, but that's apparently not a problem). Then they have a Stallmanistic desire for a completely free environment, and say they won't use support already present in your system, and for which you already paid (either directly or through your OS license). Other free projects, like Chromium, have no such problems.
Mozilla is positioning itself as the only loser in this. They say they won't sacrifice freedom for anything, but they already sacrificed lots of Firefox's principles now (lightness and speed come to mind). Refusing to use the support that is already in the system would be as stupid as blocking sites or plugins because they don't convey the exact same mentality as the project. Imagine if Firefox blocked ubuntu.com because Ubuntu isn't a 100% free OS and, therefore, people should stay out of it.
For your last point, anyone is free to make an implementation of a browser supporting H.264. You may call gstreamer/QT/DShow or you can license it directly and write your own codec. I see the point in putting the freedom of the code above the freedom of the developers, but when you take away the freedom from the user (to use the video support he paid for) because of the freedom of the code, that's a real issue.
Well, if someone made a port of Halo (using the same name, which also happens to be a common word) for the PS3, I'm sure Microsoft would kill them in court. Notice that people CAN legally play Lemmings on recent hardware, so availability isn't an issue and the brand isn't dead.
The problem goes a bit deeper than this. CPT invariance is mathematically equivalent to Poincaré invariance. Breaking CPT means breaking symmetry under the Poincaré group (which is basically all translations, relativistic boosts and rotations). This is specially intriguing because particles are defined as irreducible representations of the Poincaré group. In other words, if Poincaré (or CPT) is broken, we cannot define a particle. This is one of the main problems with compatibility between quantum field theory and general relativity: in curved spacetimes there is no Poincaré symmetry, so there is no unambiguous definition of a particle and all hell breaks loose: even the definition of vacuum can't be done.
If those MINOS results are confirmed (and I assume they won't) QFT won't just needs adjustments: it will be wrong in a conceptual level. That would be VERY interesting, to say the least...
Not directly. IceCube in fact detects the Cherenkov radiation emitted by high energy muons when travelling on ice. It works as a neutrino detector because muons, despite having quite a long range, can't travel through the Earth; so a muon coming from "below" was necessarily created near the detector, and the only particle that exists freely, can cross the Earth and has a high enough cross section for muon creation is a muon-neutrino. Neutralinos can create muons through some processes in some models, but the effect would be completely obfuscated by neutrino-induced events.
However, they can detect neutralinos (and other dark matter particles) indirectly. For a given particle to be considered as a dark matter candidate, it needs to be affected by gravitational fields. Therefore, any dark matter particle would accumulate on any large gravitational field, such as the galaxy centre or the Sun. In most models (and certainly for neutralinos), two dark matter particles could annihilate mutually, creating other, less massive particles; in almost every one of those decay modes, there are neutrinos in the final state. So, if the dark matter really exists and it's composed of neutralinos, we predict a flux of neutrinos coming from the Sun (with an energy well above those that come from the normal nuclear fusion), from the galaxy centre, and even from the centre of the Earth. These fluxes (or at least the one from the Sun) can be detected given enough time, at least for some possible dark matter models. Halzen and Hooper have a very good paper on this (Halzen, BTW, is one of the top heads for IceCube).
"Telescope" is used by astronomers and physicists in this sense: an instrument to study the sky. So, COBE/WMAP/Planck were microwave telescopes, Auger is a cosmic ray telescope, and IceCube is a neutrino telescope. The word was borrowed from optical telescopes to radio/x-ray telescopes, and from there to everything else. IceCube researchers call it a neutrino telescope, it's not an error by the article.
Yes, that is why it detects "specially" what comes from below the horizon (or from the northern sky). However, they have some sensitivity to downgoing neutrinos (coming from above the horizon, or from the southern sky), if they arrive with an energy so high that the atmospheric muon background at those energies would be negligible. Or, being more technically correct, they use an array of cosmic ray detectors in the surface to identify if an event whose energy is above a certain threshold and coming from "above" them (from the Southern sky) is due to a cosmic ray or to a neutrino.
They will detect orders of magnitude more neutrinos from the north, but (if the flux is high enough) we can expect a few events from the south. Since their energy has to be very high, their direction can be measured very well, so you get an "image" of the southern sky. Of course, KM3NET (when built in the northern hemisphere) will do a better image of the southern sky, but we have to take what we have right now.
It's ability to trace the sky using a carrier that was never explored in this way (except to "see" what happens in the sun, and during a nearby supernova).
Using optical telescopes, we can get an image of how the universe looks in visible photons. In an x-ray telescope, we get an image of the universe in x-ray photons. In a cosmic ray telescope, we get an image in charged particles. IceCube (plus its northern sister, KM3Net) should be able to get an image of the universe in neutrinos with energies over 1 TeV.
Your eyes are a "telescope". We usually reserve the word for instruments that let us examine astrophysical objects in a way that we can't do with our naked eyes, but an optical telescope works in exactly the same way as your eyes. Just change the retina for a CCD.
It's omni-directional. The detectors are placed in a way that it can detect the arrival of neutrinos coming from any direction (including, and specially, from below the horizon). This way, we can get a "whole sky" image at once, without moving anything in the experiment.