Researchers have devised a new way to get a sneak peek into what's going on deep in your digestive system, creating a swallowable sensor that, with the help of engineered bacteria and a tiny electrical circuit, can detect the presence of molecules that might be signs of disease and then beam the results to a smartphone app. The device, which scientists validated in pigs, remains a prototype and needs to be refined before it could be used in people.
So, how did they get the smartphones away from the pigs after the study was complete?
The fit and finish was terrible. The keycard wasn't recognized, the backup camera didn't work, the audio system spontaneously turned itself on, and the passenger vanity mirror fell off. It's a TERRIBLE rocket! TERRIBLE! Nobody will ever buy them! Nobody SHOULD ever buy them! If you can't see behind you, how can you back your rocket up? And it's really embarrassing when you walk up to your rocket in the parking lot and the audio system starts blasting Yanni out the windows. Just because it put 7 satellites in orbit doesn't mean it's a good product.
Of course that means bring in things from the asteroid belt or further, which are then going to be moving FAST, and do a LOT of damage when they hit (though perhaps they could be vaporized just before impact - momentum transfer would be the same, but the energy would mostly be dissipated as atmospheric heating... which might be okay.
You misunderstand the scenario. Momentum transfer can happen simply by shifting asteroids into a near-Earth parabolic orbit. Impactors are not required. Large asteroids swinging by the Earth one after another will cause the Earth to change orbit eventually, without smashing the biosphere in the process. Depending on how fast you get the asteroids moving for their flybys, you could chuck them out of the solar system entirely in the process. Likely this is desirable, since momentum is linear with velocity, so the faster they go by, the more momentum they can impart.
Just don't aim badly, or there's no point in moving the planet anymore since you've rendered it uninhabitable.
None of it comes from the fossil sources that are adding new carbon to the environment. Therefore if all the cows vanished today, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere would not change.
That's less than two-thirds true. Most beef cattle are grass fed for 2/3rds of their life, then grain fed for the last third. The grain is grown with petroleum-based fertilizers. On the other hand, milk cows are fed almost exclusively on a complex mixture of silage and grains, which is largely petroleum-fertilized grain (using the whole plant, not just the seed). They include no more than 18% of all cattle in the US, but that still cuts in to the 2/3rds. The USDA tracks these things. (Big government at work, collecting and digesting valuable data and publishing it for only tax money, oh noes.)
In 2004, Donald establishes a TV series based on presenting himself as a competent leader with companions to oversee competing groups of people of different walks of life vying to become business leaders themselves. Though he experiments for years before he identifies how to achieve ratings through placing himself above the bickering of those beneath him....
I'd quote more, but it'd be a wall.
That's an interesting narrative, but it ignores Trump's own statements, habits, and long-established strategies. Trump succeeded at his one and only goal: building the Trump brand. It was all going so well and then he got elected. That was most definitely not part of the plan. Remember, he was already laying the groundwork for what was going to be years of "the system was rigged against me!" complaining after he lost, to make the poor downtrodden multi-millionaire story tug at your heartstrings and... boost the Trump brand.
That's what it was all about. Getting elected was the plan backfiring on him. He didn't want to move to Washington D.C. He didn't want to leave New York. New York is his stomping grounds. D.C. is completely foreign to him, and it shows in everything he does and says. The campaign was what he likes. Getting up in front of a crowd of people who will cheer literally anything he says, getting his name on all the news shows every single night, that was building the Trump brand like nobody's business. The getting elected thing? Disaster. Now he has to work. Now he's getting criticized, rather than praised for nebulous impossible promises.
Would Trump like his name on some extremely permanent monument? He definitely would. Is that wall going to be it? That wall will never be built. Not any significant part of it. The Federal government will fiddle and fardle around, do studies, have committee meetings, and generally bury the thing in red tape until Trump is out of office, at which point the whole thing will be quietly cancelled after one of those committee meetings determines it's too expensive. And that will be the end of it.
Trump's name goes into the history books, and yes, there will be a Trump Presidential Library, in New York City, and the irony will be appreciated for generations to come. A Presidential Library for the man who doesn't read, because he's too vain to wear his reading glasses.
Yeah. Not a bill of attainder. The terms that the government and other parties agree to for a contract are not law. Changing those terms are not punishment.
Did you see the part in the summary about the regulatory commission? Postal rates are Not Simple.
This makes my head hurt. Differentiate point-to-point from a fixed route...
They're terms of art in the transportation sector, so it's jargon, not English. The English meaning doesn't have to make sense.
Generally speaking, point-to-point means no set schedule and no defined order. Fixed route means visit order of each stop is immutable, and usually scheduled. Light rail is the classical fixed route example. The train has no choice about which stations it will pass in which order. (Nor does the train driver, for the pedantic among us.)
Bills of attainder are forbidden by the US Constitution. Federal regulations have the force of law, so no Donny, you can't fuck around with Amazon's contract with the USPS.
Really, I understand he's not a lawyer, but he took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, a document with which he is manifestly completely unfamiliar. I think there's a case to be made that he can be forced to at least read it once. While wearing his glasses that he refuses to wear in public, which is why he appears to be illiterate in public settings.
Not saying you're wrong on all points, but are tanks on a battlefield strategically important anymore? It seems like they are going more and more the way of the battleship - an expensive asset that is difficult to justify based on how war has evolved.
Not as important as they once were. Which is why the US Army conceived the Future Combat Systems project. It was supposed to produce mini-tanks weighing less than 6 tons (the Abrams typically weighs 68 tons). It failed and was cancelled in 2009.
That's roughly how it would work, and don't think for a minute that similar things haven't been done before. Corporations do hostile take-overs and buy-outs all the time and then bury whatever it is.
All of that is true and possible, but I think people would notice Vladimir Putin running around shirtless for the next 100 years.
We should make a name server that resolves arbitrary strings into their first Google hits. In time, this could become another level in the DNS hierarchy.
That was included in one of the proposals for universal document identifiers, before URLs and URIs took over. Instead of typing "http://ford.com", you would type "Ford Motor Co." and the two would be identical to the machine. Not a search, but a lookup.
That layer has never been developed, and the need was mostly obviated by the rise of search engines.
Musk bought the market from Congress. We were directed, very clearly, that SpaceX would get a space rating in spite of having done very little of the engineering.
You just keep spouting that same tired line. It was bullshit when you first conceived of it and it's bullshit today, after the 50th repetition. SpaceX launches payloads successfully. Their space rating is their continued success for multiple customers, launch after launch after launch. They've launched a payload every 13 days in 2018, with a 100% success rate. ULA has launched 3 in the same timeframe. By the end of the year, ULA will finally have as many launches completed in 2018 as SpaceX has right now, in the middle of April. Assuming the November launch isn't delayed, which it probably will be because Starliner won't be ready. SpaceX has landed 3 first stages this year, and reused 5 first stages this year. ULA has never done either.
However, his statement for needless 10x improvement on the formet smacks more of justification FUD for delays than any real need.
It's not entirely justification FUD on his part. It's counter-FUD to one of the most frequently repeated slurs against Tesla: that their fit and finish is poor. We see it here on Slashdot constantly, so constantly and consistently that it's obviously a concerted smear campaign. Personally I think it's an overreaction on Elon's part. An order of magnitude improvement in tolerances in wholly unnecessary to achieving their goals, and mostly tangential to ending the smear campaign.
All Tesla has to do to make the FUD stop is to make Model 3s, fast and well. When enough of the short sellers go bankrupt, the FUD campaigns will run out of funding too and stop.
Yea, well nukes are nothing more than an inanimate tools as well. I have never once had a problem with any of them spontaneously coming to life and nuking someone or something by themselves. Yet I don't see anyone arguing that it should be okay for anyone to walk around with one.
Or ride around with one as a motorcycle sidecar...
Indeed. Satellite-satellite relays are a minority of traffic, not the majority. Where possible, the communication is a single hop - between the user and a base station located on an internet backbone.
Starlink may or may not fall into that category. The lower tier of satellites is designed to beam-form down to just 1.5 degrees, an approximate 4 km radius at the 340 km altitude. Maximum ground footprint at that altitude has a radius of ~440km, but according to their FCC filing, it will never use a beam size that large. There's text in there that implies using multiple simultaneous beams, but I'm not finding anything explicit. No time to read it all, and it's dense technical reading.
There's been a ton of replies already, but the only one that matters is missing.
What you want does not exist and will not exist because Microsoft aggressively stamps out any attempt to create what you're asking for. Want a Windows license? You can't ship with any other OS. End of story. The moment Dell created Latitude On, Microsoft was on the phone telling them, "No more," and every Windows license agreement since has included the new clause.
the SLS should be cancelled. Use saved money on science projects like JWT. With the BFR coming, theres no need for the bloated waste of SLS cronyism
If SLS is ever cancelled, it will be replaced with something just like it. SLS exists for military reasons, and no others. Congress is making sure Thiokol maintains their expertise in building solid fuel boosters. The other name for solid fuel booster is ICBM. There will always be a NASA project with Thiokol boosters embedded in it as long as the Air Force isn't allowed to just pay for ICBM maintenance themselves.
We still have people robbing banks, with guns, knives, bombs, etc.
And not one with fully automatic guns. So yes, it did work, by your own admission in both of your previous posts. No more fully automatic guns, no more fully automatic gun crimes. Simple, and very directly correlated.
Of course, the Chicago Beer Wars only really ended when Prohibition was repealed. The largest part of current gun crime is linked to New Prohibition. Food for thought.
It's trivial to show you that the more gun control we have the worse the problem with guns is.
It most certainly is not trivial, especially since you proceeded to confuse yourself in the same paragraph.
Australia has had mass shootings and killings since their ban, just look it up. England is very easy to debunk with their gun control and how crime has risen so don't even go there.
Violent crime of all kinds, involving guns or not, has fallen dramatically since the late 80s, everywhere in the Western world, with only a very small uptick in the past 2 years. That includes time periods where gun bans were enacted. So your assertion that more gun control causes worse gun problems is obvious nonsense on the face of it. In England specifically, there have been fewer fatalities since their gun ban was enacted. Likewise for Japan. Nutjobs with knives do still exist, but they do far less damage.
The left historically loves gun control. Hitler was for it...
And you lose. Godwin's Law.
...and in America it's always historically been racist.
A leftist dog whistle argument? Really?
A well armed public keeps government in check.
Riiiiight. In check you say. That's what it is. Sure. I can tell. If it is, not one gun was used to keep it in check. When was the last time there was a successful armed revolution that overthrew a repressive regime in the Western world? Name one. I'll wait.
They seem to want a 2nd civil war. The Democrats won't win this time either.
As usual, completely ignoring that the political stances of the two parties have swapped essentially end for end since the Civil War. Historical revisionism wins you no arguments.
I think we need to do a lot more cleaning after the fact, however.
Ok Internet Tough Guy. You know what I saw on the highway last week? A pickup truck with a permanently disabled license plate surrounded by a US Marine Corp plate holder, with a Service Disabled Veteran bumper sticker. And right next to it, a RESIST sticker. People who own and know how to use guns are not all gun nuts.
Today, man I have a whole bunch of guns. I have ammo for guns I don't even own.
Yeah, I know, you have a fetish. It was obvious from your argumentation, and only borne out by that statement.
I find it amusing that you and all your ilk and your favoritist lobbying organization in the whole wide world goes on and on condemning the "Assault Weapon" ban while saying in the same breath that it only banned the "scary" parts of guns. Which it did. And I understand why you hate it so much, and "the left" that passed it. Even though that ban did nothing whatsoever to affect the ability of anyone to own guns that would be perfectly effective for your precious armed revolution that will never happen, YOU hate it because it bans the sexy parts of guns. You have a fetish. You want your fetish objects to look menacing, even when those features have negligible effects on their utility.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't care about your sexual obsessions, but you've decided to obsess over an object that is also a deadly weapon. That's fine. You do you. But I want all your fetish objects treated just like the fully automatic
Slashdot Mirror
Researchers have devised a new way to get a sneak peek into what's going on deep in your digestive system, creating a swallowable sensor that, with the help of engineered bacteria and a tiny electrical circuit, can detect the presence of molecules that might be signs of disease and then beam the results to a smartphone app. The device, which scientists validated in pigs, remains a prototype and needs to be refined before it could be used in people.
So, how did they get the smartphones away from the pigs after the study was complete?
This is slashdot, so we know better. If you seriously think that the best attack vector by far isn't the voting machines, fucking kill yourself.
That escalated quickly...
The fit and finish was terrible. The keycard wasn't recognized, the backup camera didn't work, the audio system spontaneously turned itself on, and the passenger vanity mirror fell off. It's a TERRIBLE rocket! TERRIBLE! Nobody will ever buy them! Nobody SHOULD ever buy them! If you can't see behind you, how can you back your rocket up? And it's really embarrassing when you walk up to your rocket in the parking lot and the audio system starts blasting Yanni out the windows. Just because it put 7 satellites in orbit doesn't mean it's a good product.
Wait...
Hmm, does _anything_ block a magnetic field?
Yes. Iron. Steel. Ferrous metals in general. Copper mesh is good too, also known as a Faraday Cage.
Of course that means bring in things from the asteroid belt or further, which are then going to be moving FAST, and do a LOT of damage when they hit (though perhaps they could be vaporized just before impact - momentum transfer would be the same, but the energy would mostly be dissipated as atmospheric heating... which might be okay.
You misunderstand the scenario. Momentum transfer can happen simply by shifting asteroids into a near-Earth parabolic orbit. Impactors are not required. Large asteroids swinging by the Earth one after another will cause the Earth to change orbit eventually, without smashing the biosphere in the process. Depending on how fast you get the asteroids moving for their flybys, you could chuck them out of the solar system entirely in the process. Likely this is desirable, since momentum is linear with velocity, so the faster they go by, the more momentum they can impart.
Just don't aim badly, or there's no point in moving the planet anymore since you've rendered it uninhabitable.
None of it comes from the fossil sources that are adding new carbon to the environment. Therefore if all the cows vanished today, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere would not change.
That's less than two-thirds true. Most beef cattle are grass fed for 2/3rds of their life, then grain fed for the last third. The grain is grown with petroleum-based fertilizers. On the other hand, milk cows are fed almost exclusively on a complex mixture of silage and grains, which is largely petroleum-fertilized grain (using the whole plant, not just the seed). They include no more than 18% of all cattle in the US, but that still cuts in to the 2/3rds. The USDA tracks these things. (Big government at work, collecting and digesting valuable data and publishing it for only tax money, oh noes.)
In 2004, Donald establishes a TV series based on presenting himself as a competent leader with companions to oversee competing groups of people of different walks of life vying to become business leaders themselves. Though he experiments for years before he identifies how to achieve ratings through placing himself above the bickering of those beneath him. ...
I'd quote more, but it'd be a wall.
That's an interesting narrative, but it ignores Trump's own statements, habits, and long-established strategies. Trump succeeded at his one and only goal: building the Trump brand. It was all going so well and then he got elected. That was most definitely not part of the plan. Remember, he was already laying the groundwork for what was going to be years of "the system was rigged against me!" complaining after he lost, to make the poor downtrodden multi-millionaire story tug at your heartstrings and... boost the Trump brand.
That's what it was all about. Getting elected was the plan backfiring on him. He didn't want to move to Washington D.C. He didn't want to leave New York. New York is his stomping grounds. D.C. is completely foreign to him, and it shows in everything he does and says. The campaign was what he likes. Getting up in front of a crowd of people who will cheer literally anything he says, getting his name on all the news shows every single night, that was building the Trump brand like nobody's business. The getting elected thing? Disaster. Now he has to work. Now he's getting criticized, rather than praised for nebulous impossible promises.
Would Trump like his name on some extremely permanent monument? He definitely would. Is that wall going to be it? That wall will never be built. Not any significant part of it. The Federal government will fiddle and fardle around, do studies, have committee meetings, and generally bury the thing in red tape until Trump is out of office, at which point the whole thing will be quietly cancelled after one of those committee meetings determines it's too expensive. And that will be the end of it.
Trump's name goes into the history books, and yes, there will be a Trump Presidential Library, in New York City, and the irony will be appreciated for generations to come. A Presidential Library for the man who doesn't read, because he's too vain to wear his reading glasses.
Yeah. Not a bill of attainder. The terms that the government and other parties agree to for a contract are not law. Changing those terms are not punishment.
Did you see the part in the summary about the regulatory commission? Postal rates are Not Simple.
This makes my head hurt. Differentiate point-to-point from a fixed route...
They're terms of art in the transportation sector, so it's jargon, not English. The English meaning doesn't have to make sense.
Generally speaking, point-to-point means no set schedule and no defined order. Fixed route means visit order of each stop is immutable, and usually scheduled. Light rail is the classical fixed route example. The train has no choice about which stations it will pass in which order. (Nor does the train driver, for the pedantic among us.)
<Insert gratuitous trains-running-on-time unfunny "joke" here>
Bills of attainder are forbidden by the US Constitution. Federal regulations have the force of law, so no Donny, you can't fuck around with Amazon's contract with the USPS.
Really, I understand he's not a lawyer, but he took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, a document with which he is manifestly completely unfamiliar. I think there's a case to be made that he can be forced to at least read it once. While wearing his glasses that he refuses to wear in public, which is why he appears to be illiterate in public settings.
Not saying you're wrong on all points, but are tanks on a battlefield strategically important anymore? It seems like they are going more and more the way of the battleship - an expensive asset that is difficult to justify based on how war has evolved.
Not as important as they once were. Which is why the US Army conceived the Future Combat Systems project. It was supposed to produce mini-tanks weighing less than 6 tons (the Abrams typically weighs 68 tons). It failed and was cancelled in 2009.
That's roughly how it would work, and don't think for a minute that similar things haven't been done before. Corporations do hostile take-overs and buy-outs all the time and then bury whatever it is.
All of that is true and possible, but I think people would notice Vladimir Putin running around shirtless for the next 100 years.
We should make a name server that resolves arbitrary strings into their first Google hits. In time, this could become another level in the DNS hierarchy.
That was included in one of the proposals for universal document identifiers, before URLs and URIs took over. Instead of typing "http://ford.com", you would type "Ford Motor Co." and the two would be identical to the machine. Not a search, but a lookup.
That layer has never been developed, and the need was mostly obviated by the rise of search engines.
I've had 2 female programmer colleagues in 16 years in the games industry.
That's because women are smarter than men and know better than to go into such a shitty industry voluntarily.
Jesus Christ, $2000?
HARD PASS.
I suspect the OP wants to buy two flagship pocket computers^W^Wphones.
Musk bought the market from Congress. We were directed, very clearly, that SpaceX would get a space rating in spite of having done very little of the engineering.
You just keep spouting that same tired line. It was bullshit when you first conceived of it and it's bullshit today, after the 50th repetition. SpaceX launches payloads successfully. Their space rating is their continued success for multiple customers, launch after launch after launch. They've launched a payload every 13 days in 2018, with a 100% success rate. ULA has launched 3 in the same timeframe. By the end of the year, ULA will finally have as many launches completed in 2018 as SpaceX has right now, in the middle of April. Assuming the November launch isn't delayed, which it probably will be because Starliner won't be ready. SpaceX has landed 3 first stages this year, and reused 5 first stages this year. ULA has never done either.
Manifestly, SpaceX has done the engineering.
And you're an idiot.
However, his statement for needless 10x improvement on the formet smacks more of justification FUD for delays than any real need.
It's not entirely justification FUD on his part. It's counter-FUD to one of the most frequently repeated slurs against Tesla: that their fit and finish is poor. We see it here on Slashdot constantly, so constantly and consistently that it's obviously a concerted smear campaign. Personally I think it's an overreaction on Elon's part. An order of magnitude improvement in tolerances in wholly unnecessary to achieving their goals, and mostly tangential to ending the smear campaign.
All Tesla has to do to make the FUD stop is to make Model 3s, fast and well. When enough of the short sellers go bankrupt, the FUD campaigns will run out of funding too and stop.
Yea, well nukes are nothing more than an inanimate tools as well. I have never once had a problem with any of them spontaneously coming to life and nuking someone or something by themselves. Yet I don't see anyone arguing that it should be okay for anyone to walk around with one.
Or ride around with one as a motorcycle sidecar...
Can these scientists say explain what is the sound of one hand clapping?
*wank* *wank* *wank* *wank*
Indeed. Satellite-satellite relays are a minority of traffic, not the majority. Where possible, the communication is a single hop - between the user and a base station located on an internet backbone.
Starlink may or may not fall into that category. The lower tier of satellites is designed to beam-form down to just 1.5 degrees, an approximate 4 km radius at the 340 km altitude. Maximum ground footprint at that altitude has a radius of ~440km, but according to their FCC filing, it will never use a beam size that large. There's text in there that implies using multiple simultaneous beams, but I'm not finding anything explicit. No time to read it all, and it's dense technical reading.
There's been a ton of replies already, but the only one that matters is missing.
What you want does not exist and will not exist because Microsoft aggressively stamps out any attempt to create what you're asking for. Want a Windows license? You can't ship with any other OS. End of story. The moment Dell created Latitude On, Microsoft was on the phone telling them, "No more," and every Windows license agreement since has included the new clause.
the SLS should be cancelled. Use saved money on science projects like JWT. With the BFR coming, theres no need for the bloated waste of SLS cronyism
If SLS is ever cancelled, it will be replaced with something just like it. SLS exists for military reasons, and no others. Congress is making sure Thiokol maintains their expertise in building solid fuel boosters. The other name for solid fuel booster is ICBM. There will always be a NASA project with Thiokol boosters embedded in it as long as the Air Force isn't allowed to just pay for ICBM maintenance themselves.
Hellraiser (John Constantine)
That's Hellblazer...
And many people will be surprised to discover John Constantine is blonde and British.
I think it would be awesome if raccoons were trained to work as fruit pickers.
First, they came for the fruit picker jobs....
Next think you knew, the furry little bandits were operating the fry machine at McDonalds.
We still have people robbing banks, with guns, knives, bombs, etc.
And not one with fully automatic guns. So yes, it did work, by your own admission in both of your previous posts. No more fully automatic guns, no more fully automatic gun crimes. Simple, and very directly correlated.
Of course, the Chicago Beer Wars only really ended when Prohibition was repealed. The largest part of current gun crime is linked to New Prohibition. Food for thought.
It's trivial to show you that the more gun control we have the worse the problem with guns is.
It most certainly is not trivial, especially since you proceeded to confuse yourself in the same paragraph.
Australia has had mass shootings and killings since their ban, just look it up. England is very easy to debunk with their gun control and how crime has risen so don't even go there.
Violent crime of all kinds, involving guns or not, has fallen dramatically since the late 80s, everywhere in the Western world, with only a very small uptick in the past 2 years. That includes time periods where gun bans were enacted. So your assertion that more gun control causes worse gun problems is obvious nonsense on the face of it. In England specifically, there have been fewer fatalities since their gun ban was enacted. Likewise for Japan. Nutjobs with knives do still exist, but they do far less damage.
The left historically loves gun control. Hitler was for it...
And you lose. Godwin's Law.
...and in America it's always historically been racist.
A leftist dog whistle argument? Really?
A well armed public keeps government in check.
Riiiiight. In check you say. That's what it is. Sure. I can tell. If it is, not one gun was used to keep it in check. When was the last time there was a successful armed revolution that overthrew a repressive regime in the Western world? Name one. I'll wait.
They seem to want a 2nd civil war. The Democrats won't win this time either.
As usual, completely ignoring that the political stances of the two parties have swapped essentially end for end since the Civil War. Historical revisionism wins you no arguments.
I think we need to do a lot more cleaning after the fact, however.
Ok Internet Tough Guy. You know what I saw on the highway last week? A pickup truck with a permanently disabled license plate surrounded by a US Marine Corp plate holder, with a Service Disabled Veteran bumper sticker. And right next to it, a RESIST sticker. People who own and know how to use guns are not all gun nuts.
Today, man I have a whole bunch of guns. I have ammo for guns I don't even own.
Yeah, I know, you have a fetish. It was obvious from your argumentation, and only borne out by that statement.
I find it amusing that you and all your ilk and your favoritist lobbying organization in the whole wide world goes on and on condemning the "Assault Weapon" ban while saying in the same breath that it only banned the "scary" parts of guns. Which it did. And I understand why you hate it so much, and "the left" that passed it. Even though that ban did nothing whatsoever to affect the ability of anyone to own guns that would be perfectly effective for your precious armed revolution that will never happen, YOU hate it because it bans the sexy parts of guns. You have a fetish. You want your fetish objects to look menacing, even when those features have negligible effects on their utility.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't care about your sexual obsessions, but you've decided to obsess over an object that is also a deadly weapon. That's fine. You do you. But I want all your fetish objects treated just like the fully automatic