Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The idea is that instead of creating very complex individual entities, we figure out how to make very simple entities that, en masse, do what we want. The whole problem then is reverse engineering from the macroscopic behaviour we want to the microscopic properties that we need to engineer.
OK, jokes aside, that's effing cool.
Starting in the new year, I'll be joining a nano research team so things like this are incredibly exciting.
As I see it, the ultimate hurdle with nanoscience won't be on the engineering side. The great challenge will be theoretical, determining what microscopic abilities/properties the nanobots/cars/things will need to have in order for the swarm to exhibit the macroscopic behaviour that's desired. So for example, with these nanocars delivering particles in a ground-up assembly. Each car could be completely autonomous and somehow programmed to bring its payload exactly where it's supposed to go, but that would be completely unfeasible: if you're producing 10^23 vehicles, each needs to be exactly the same, not a custom build like this prototype. So instead you need to figure out exactly what properties and initial conditions the swarm has to have so that, collectively, it does what you want. Sort of like reverse engineering an ant colony. It sounds pretty straight forward, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done in the mathematics of this sort of thing.
Anyways, very exciting!
... what was he supposed to do? Put the problem on hold 4-5 days till you were available?
The grandparent specifically said "I wasn't just asking myself to rise to the challenge, I was asking him to do so too."
He was admitting it was an untenable situation because he was putting his boss in an impossible position. The very last thing he said was that it was completely understandable that his boss went with the guy in the office. There's nothing suggesting he was upset or even slightly annoyed. So...um...no.
And if that still doesn't appeal to you, Walmart sometimes has developers going as loss leaders during the Christmas season...you can pick one up today for a fraction of its wholesale value!
Missing something?
on
Sleep Mailing
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
From the summary and TFA, it sounds like she found out emails that she didn't recall writing had been sent from her computer, so she went to a doctor and they concluded she was sleep walking. No where does it say anything about observational studies being conducted, or anything that suggests anyone actually saw her do this. So...why exactly was the possibility of her account being hacked/pranked by a friend ruled out?
Helicopters and mountains tend to not mix. The air is so thin that they can fail without warning and crash. The helicopter which supposedly landed on the summit that the sibling mentioned is supposed to have a ceiling of about 18 000 ft (Everest's summit is about 29 000 ft). I believe that landing's in dispute. Either way, Everest is well above the cruising altitude of your standard helicopter, and that's to say nothing of how dangerous landing (or even hovering) would be with the wind speeds up there.
I don't really think it's fair to call this a free speech issue. There are laws against spam in many countries, and we don't call that an attack on free speech. So the only real question here is whether or not what she did was actually considered spamming. From MSU's policy on bulk emailing (linked to in article):
"Bulk e-mailing may be used only by University offices to send communications necessary to the normal course of business and which typically require some official action be taken individually by recipients."
Since part of the proposal Spencer was speaking against involved shortening the fall semester by two days, I guess that sort of qualifies. However, the policy also says:
"Bulk e-mailing may not be used for personal purposes, advertising or solicitations, or political statements or purposes."
I think had she simply sent out an email informing faculty of the changes, it would be fine. But the purpose of the email was to solicit support. It's all a little fuzzy, but I think that with a little thought, there isn't much question that her email did violate MSU's terms of use. Profs, especially ones with large classes, have to deal with tonnes of email. I'd probably be annoyed to if someone had harvested my address off a database or website intended to be use for academic purposes, and started sending me mass emails about general student issues.
I can see where you would be confused. Actually, cold sore is a much more logical name for frostbite anyways.
But yes, indeed cold sore != frostbite. The former's a viral infection and the latter is just damage to the skin caused by the cold. I think cold sores are so named because cold weather (and by extension, having a cold) can cause an outbreak because of the stress it puts on your system. Personally, I find I'm most susceptible to getting a cold sore if there's been a recent big fluctuation in temperature.
With these findings in mind, it would be interesting if someone were to do a study and see if there's a correlation between Alzheimer's incidence and people who have a tendency to get cold sores. Since only 20-40% (according to TFA) of HSV-1 carriers develop cold sores, I wonder if being susceptible to outbreaks indicates a higher risk of developing Alzheimer's later in life. You'd have to correct for all sorts of environment factors, but still, as someone who gets cold sores something awful that would be a very interesting study.
Anyways, great article, it's good news if something comes out of this. HSV in its different varieties is already known to be responsible for quite a few diseases so only good can come out of more research into it.
Fair enough, you make good points. I guess in the age of affirmative action and such, we're sort of trained to think that as long as it's not negative discrimination it's alright.
I still believe it's a little subtler than that. My point was that they weren't discriminating against white males because they're white males per se, but instead they were trying not to discriminate against any one, and in trying way too hard, failed miserably. A big part of racism is intent. Though I love I've been modded troll, great to see slashdot's ever the forum for open discussion...
OK, let's be fair. What they did was incredibly stupid, and I'm glad that the student body rightfully opposed it, but it wasn't racist. They weren't discriminating against white men, they were being extremist everything-must-be-inclusive-of-everybody PC. It wasn't they were being racist, they were trying to do the opposite. The problem of course is that we fight diseases to cure PEOPLE regardless of who they are. Trying to choose some "representative disease" that affects everyone to avoid being "discriminatory" is just ridiculous, which is why what they did was stupid.
Hydrogen peroxide naturally decomposes into water and oxygen gas:
2(H2O2) -> 2(H2O) + O2
but it's a very slow reaction. But, throw in a catalyst like silver and it happens in milliseconds. It's a highly exothermic reaction, so at those rates, it actually produces oxygen gas and superheated steam, which is directed through a nozzle. The catalyst isn't used up, so yes you could just refuel and take off again, though the equipment probably needs time to cool down.
Yes, so you turn your clock back an hour. Imagine when you turned back your clocks, you left one on DST. When the DST clock reads 7 o'clock pm, it's now actually 6 o'clock. So it gets dark earlier in the evening. When we switch to DST, it stays light later into the evening, what was once 6 o'clock pm and still light is now 7 o'clock. DST makes it light later.
Same magazine, same journalist, two studies. If you want to make an argument about the quality of the studies or the slant of the articles, go right ahead. Questioning someone about the quality of their sources is part of a good debate. However, you accused the parent of being deceptive. If you really have a good argument, it will speak for itself. This isn't about sunspots or earthside temperature variations. This is about having discussion about an issue and keeping it about the issue.
I said nothing about National Geographic being a reliable source, and I specifically said that if the poster had an argument about editor bias, that would be different. At no point did I say anything about being a "greenie weenie". In fact, I said nothing whatsoever about global warming. You immediately assume that because someone disagrees with someone's argument that they disagree with their whole point of view. The poster made an incorrect statement, due to not bothering to RTFAs. I offered a correction. Forgive me, I'd briefly forgotten that constructive discussion here is impossible. I'll try not to make the same mistake again.
"Good thing you didn't quote the same source twice to pad your results."
I'm assuming that was sarcasm, because of the two National Geographic articles. The two articles refer to two different studies and were published almost a year apart. If you want to argue editor bias or something like that, that's one thing. However the grandparent was making a legitimate attempt to back up his claim with multiple sources. Just because that's a rarity around here is no cause to try to spin his/her motives.
And again, if you weren't being sarcastic, I apologize, but then that line was kind of random.
'"The system that I've been using has worked well for almost forty years; but recently I have had to close three checking accounts, and the criminal attacks on those accounts have caused significant grief to my bankers," says Knuth.'
Maybe (and this is just wild conjecture here) that has something to do with idiots writing articles like this, complete with scans of people's personal cheques with the signature uncensored. Brilliant. Real effing brilliant.
Slashdot Mirror
yyy.ahb.msk/nscdc.ofz Holy crib Batman.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The idea is that instead of creating very complex individual entities, we figure out how to make very simple entities that, en masse, do what we want. The whole problem then is reverse engineering from the macroscopic behaviour we want to the microscopic properties that we need to engineer.
OK, jokes aside, that's effing cool. Starting in the new year, I'll be joining a nano research team so things like this are incredibly exciting. As I see it, the ultimate hurdle with nanoscience won't be on the engineering side. The great challenge will be theoretical, determining what microscopic abilities/properties the nanobots/cars/things will need to have in order for the swarm to exhibit the macroscopic behaviour that's desired. So for example, with these nanocars delivering particles in a ground-up assembly. Each car could be completely autonomous and somehow programmed to bring its payload exactly where it's supposed to go, but that would be completely unfeasible: if you're producing 10^23 vehicles, each needs to be exactly the same, not a custom build like this prototype. So instead you need to figure out exactly what properties and initial conditions the swarm has to have so that, collectively, it does what you want. Sort of like reverse engineering an ant colony. It sounds pretty straight forward, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done in the mathematics of this sort of thing. Anyways, very exciting!
I don't know about sad, but rolling a 7 on a single die would certainly leave me impressed.
... what was he supposed to do? Put the problem on hold 4-5 days till you were available?
The grandparent specifically said "I wasn't just asking myself to rise to the challenge, I was asking him to do so too." He was admitting it was an untenable situation because he was putting his boss in an impossible position. The very last thing he said was that it was completely understandable that his boss went with the guy in the office. There's nothing suggesting he was upset or even slightly annoyed. So...um...no.
And if that still doesn't appeal to you, Walmart sometimes has developers going as loss leaders during the Christmas season...you can pick one up today for a fraction of its wholesale value!
From the summary and TFA, it sounds like she found out emails that she didn't recall writing had been sent from her computer, so she went to a doctor and they concluded she was sleep walking. No where does it say anything about observational studies being conducted, or anything that suggests anyone actually saw her do this. So...why exactly was the possibility of her account being hacked/pranked by a friend ruled out?
Helicopters and mountains tend to not mix. The air is so thin that they can fail without warning and crash. The helicopter which supposedly landed on the summit that the sibling mentioned is supposed to have a ceiling of about 18 000 ft (Everest's summit is about 29 000 ft). I believe that landing's in dispute. Either way, Everest is well above the cruising altitude of your standard helicopter, and that's to say nothing of how dangerous landing (or even hovering) would be with the wind speeds up there.
Somebody'd better warn Cory Doctorow
I don't really think it's fair to call this a free speech issue. There are laws against spam in many countries, and we don't call that an attack on free speech. So the only real question here is whether or not what she did was actually considered spamming. From MSU's policy on bulk emailing (linked to in article): "Bulk e-mailing may be used only by University offices to send communications necessary to the normal course of business and which typically require some official action be taken individually by recipients." Since part of the proposal Spencer was speaking against involved shortening the fall semester by two days, I guess that sort of qualifies. However, the policy also says: "Bulk e-mailing may not be used for personal purposes, advertising or solicitations, or political statements or purposes." I think had she simply sent out an email informing faculty of the changes, it would be fine. But the purpose of the email was to solicit support. It's all a little fuzzy, but I think that with a little thought, there isn't much question that her email did violate MSU's terms of use. Profs, especially ones with large classes, have to deal with tonnes of email. I'd probably be annoyed to if someone had harvested my address off a database or website intended to be use for academic purposes, and started sending me mass emails about general student issues.
Obviously. The minute Hitler saw how many members the "We dont lkie ppl kiling jewz!!!" Facebook group had, he'd have thrown in the towel right away.
I can see where you would be confused. Actually, cold sore is a much more logical name for frostbite anyways. But yes, indeed cold sore != frostbite. The former's a viral infection and the latter is just damage to the skin caused by the cold. I think cold sores are so named because cold weather (and by extension, having a cold) can cause an outbreak because of the stress it puts on your system. Personally, I find I'm most susceptible to getting a cold sore if there's been a recent big fluctuation in temperature.
With these findings in mind, it would be interesting if someone were to do a study and see if there's a correlation between Alzheimer's incidence and people who have a tendency to get cold sores. Since only 20-40% (according to TFA) of HSV-1 carriers develop cold sores, I wonder if being susceptible to outbreaks indicates a higher risk of developing Alzheimer's later in life. You'd have to correct for all sorts of environment factors, but still, as someone who gets cold sores something awful that would be a very interesting study. Anyways, great article, it's good news if something comes out of this. HSV in its different varieties is already known to be responsible for quite a few diseases so only good can come out of more research into it.
Fair enough, you make good points. I guess in the age of affirmative action and such, we're sort of trained to think that as long as it's not negative discrimination it's alright.
I still believe it's a little subtler than that. My point was that they weren't discriminating against white males because they're white males per se, but instead they were trying not to discriminate against any one, and in trying way too hard, failed miserably. A big part of racism is intent. Though I love I've been modded troll, great to see slashdot's ever the forum for open discussion...
OK, let's be fair. What they did was incredibly stupid, and I'm glad that the student body rightfully opposed it, but it wasn't racist. They weren't discriminating against white men, they were being extremist everything-must-be-inclusive-of-everybody PC. It wasn't they were being racist, they were trying to do the opposite. The problem of course is that we fight diseases to cure PEOPLE regardless of who they are. Trying to choose some "representative disease" that affects everyone to avoid being "discriminatory" is just ridiculous, which is why what they did was stupid.
Hydrogen peroxide naturally decomposes into water and oxygen gas: 2(H2O2) -> 2(H2O) + O2 but it's a very slow reaction. But, throw in a catalyst like silver and it happens in milliseconds. It's a highly exothermic reaction, so at those rates, it actually produces oxygen gas and superheated steam, which is directed through a nozzle. The catalyst isn't used up, so yes you could just refuel and take off again, though the equipment probably needs time to cool down.
Yes, so you turn your clock back an hour. Imagine when you turned back your clocks, you left one on DST. When the DST clock reads 7 o'clock pm, it's now actually 6 o'clock. So it gets dark earlier in the evening. When we switch to DST, it stays light later into the evening, what was once 6 o'clock pm and still light is now 7 o'clock. DST makes it light later.
Did you somehow miss the fact that this article is about Microsoft?
This technology was invented by Shampoo
...all we have to do is combine his DNA with some amphibian genes and resurrect him.
Same magazine, same journalist, two studies. If you want to make an argument about the quality of the studies or the slant of the articles, go right ahead. Questioning someone about the quality of their sources is part of a good debate. However, you accused the parent of being deceptive. If you really have a good argument, it will speak for itself. This isn't about sunspots or earthside temperature variations. This is about having discussion about an issue and keeping it about the issue.
I said nothing about National Geographic being a reliable source, and I specifically said that if the poster had an argument about editor bias, that would be different. At no point did I say anything about being a "greenie weenie". In fact, I said nothing whatsoever about global warming. You immediately assume that because someone disagrees with someone's argument that they disagree with their whole point of view. The poster made an incorrect statement, due to not bothering to RTFAs. I offered a correction. Forgive me, I'd briefly forgotten that constructive discussion here is impossible. I'll try not to make the same mistake again.
"Good thing you didn't quote the same source twice to pad your results." I'm assuming that was sarcasm, because of the two National Geographic articles. The two articles refer to two different studies and were published almost a year apart. If you want to argue editor bias or something like that, that's one thing. However the grandparent was making a legitimate attempt to back up his claim with multiple sources. Just because that's a rarity around here is no cause to try to spin his/her motives. And again, if you weren't being sarcastic, I apologize, but then that line was kind of random.
'"The system that I've been using has worked well for almost forty years; but recently I have had to close three checking accounts, and the criminal attacks on those accounts have caused significant grief to my bankers," says Knuth.'
Maybe (and this is just wild conjecture here) that has something to do with idiots writing articles like this, complete with scans of people's personal cheques with the signature uncensored. Brilliant. Real effing brilliant.