From WP: "An object is considered a PHO if its minimum orbit intersection distance (MOID) with respect to Earth is less than 0.05 AU (7,500,000 km; 4,600,000 mi) and its diameter is at least 150 m (nearly 500 ft)".
Why does TFS indicate that the distance in miles is accurate when it is just as much an approximation as the one in km?
Also a big difference is with real banks and such the money is tracked, so you get it back.
As I read TFS, the company is taking the hit themselves. "all withdrawal requests will be honored once the platform reopens." I fail to see the difference.
The market cap is not comparable to GDP. I would assume that there are far more dollars than that out there, which would be the relevant comparison, I guess.
I don't see how blocking TPB is not related to net neutrality. Net neutrality can be boiled down to "treat all package the same", which includes packages to and from TPB. The mechanism of package discrimination are different (pay us more or we won't allow this package to come through vs. we won't allow this package to come thorugh), but they are both examples of package discrimination, and thus breaks net neutrality (as I see it, at least). Of course, there is an immense differnce between an ISP deciding to do it themselves versus an ISP being ordered by a court, so they aren't equivalent in all respects.
The religious nutjobs, I have no idea how they fits in.
I understand, I wasn't trying to get you to spend a lot of money, just wondering how we could tell whether there was a smear or nor. More of a mental exercise than anything else.
In my highschool, we had some small "spectrometers" (basically just a black plastic box with a slit, a grating and a peep-hole), they can't be that expensive. Ah, yes, these*. They have teh spectrum of a fluorescent light, there is a smear, but it seems to be smaller than for the high pressure mercury light. And it doesn't seem to be mercury-based. Hmmm, wierd. Oh, well, I am going to see if I can buy one. I wouldn't have gotten that thought if not for this dialogue, thank you:-)
uk.com? Really, slashdot? That is what you think the domain is? Wow.
While this is an interesting deveopment, it is important to note the caveats: The refractive index in silicon, the only material tested so far, is only 1.000000001. IF this theory of how this is accomplished is correct, this MIGHT be higher for heavier elements. That's a big IF.
A standard camera (which I suppose you have used to make the pictures) have a pretty lousy dynamic range, so it is conceivable that even with a sizeable contribution from the phosphor smear, the camera would not pick it up in the presence of spikes. Add to this that it is not a point source and that the diffraction grating have some diffuse scattering, and the smear might not be visible at all on the picture. It should be clearer to the naked eye, but it might be missed if you don't specifically look for it. The colours seem to be consistent with the wavelengths of mercury, but I would need to do proper measurements of distances and calculations to be sure.
As for the LED, if you look at the picture, it does seem that there is a bright spot on the far blue area, than an area with less intensity, and then a broad peak with an intensity maximum in the green and yellow. Perhaps the phosphor can be more effective at removing the exciting light when there is only one wavelength? Alternatively, it might be a LED with a UV excitation?
All of this is probably over-analysing pictures that are non-ideal (camera with low dynamic range, not a point source for the CFL, not a black background/diffuse scattering from the grating). It would be nice to have a spectrum done with a spectrometer of each of the light sources.
I think what you see is the spikes. They are (locally) stronger then the smear, so they blot out the smear so you don't see it, but it is there. This is what you can see in the spectrum I linked to earlier. If we look at a pure mercury spectrum, the first for copies in your image could correspond to four of the peaks (blue at 405 nm, cyan at 436 nm, green at 546 nm and yellow at 579 nm, the yellow is less defined, which could be because of its lower intensity). I don't know where the red copy (or copies, there seem to be at least two overlapping) comes from.
The emission wavelength of the phosphor does not depend on the excitation wavelength. In the image on the page you linked to, you would see the green spectrum regardless of whether you excited it with the entire spectrum or a single wavelength, as long as there is some overlap with the absorption spectrum. It would be a "smear" no matter what the exciting light looked like.
No, we have tested it, he was just lucky, or at least, it doesn't seem to work for any subgroup of patients we can identify. He was not on to a universal cure for cancer.
I am not sure I understand you. Let me explain the understanding I have of the process, and then you can tell me where we diverge:
CFLs: Mercury emits a series of wavelengths in quite narrow spikes, most of them in the UV. The phosphor takes these and produces continuous spectra. The resulting light is what is shown in the picture I linked to. The phosphor doesn't produce spikes.
LED lights: LED produce a rather narrow range of wavelenghts (monochrome light, at least ot the human eye). For lights, this is normally in the blue or UV area. This light excites the phosphor, which produces a continuous spectrum. The resulting light would have one spike (possibly in the UV, so it would be invisible to the human eye), the rest would be continuous.
Phosphors are not wavelength multipliers, they emit the same spectrum regardless of the incomming spectrum (as long as some of the light is in their absorption area). The data analysis done here would not work if this was not the case (for fluorescence, at least).
A good place to start are the words to two-time Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling: "Everyone should know that the 'war on cancer' is largely a fraud."
I was going to write a longer answer, but then you quoted Linus Pauling on cancer treatment. His view on that subject is the poster example of why you shouldn't rely on the words of a Nobel laureate on anything out of their main field, if that. Quoting him for wisdom on cancer treatment shows you don't know the first thing of the subject. Of course, even if you hadn't done that, your suggestion that testimonials is a good way to tell whether a treatment works shows that.
The spectrum of an incandescent bulb and a CFL is shown on wikipedia. For the CFL, the spikes are mercury emissions, the broad background is the phosphor. Phosphors emit a certain spectrum if they are irradiated within their absorption band, regardless of the incoming lights spectrum. If you are making a crude spectrum, as in your blog post, you might not see the light from the phosphor, as the spikes overwealm the detector.
Light output is approximately proportional to V^3.4
Power consumption is approximately proportional to V^1.6
Lifetime is approximately proportional to V^-16
Long living incandescents are "undervoltaged". As light/power is proportional to V^1.8, undervoltaged bulbs have lower light/power (are less efficient).
Why are we "upgrading" to bulbs that are actually inferior to the incandescents we used before?
They are inferior in some senses, and superior in other. They use a lot less energy, which is clearly a plus.
They take too long long to light
That really depends on the bulb. You can buy bulbs marked as "quick-on", which are typically at 60% in 15 seconds. While you notice the difference between 100% and 60%, the logarithmic response of our eyes make it less than you would think. It isn't instant, but I can't think of many applications that would need it faster.
don't live any longer in real world use
Mine does. And this is why anecdotal evidence is close to useless.
and have to be shipped across ~20,000 miles from China (and back) whereas the incandescents were built right here.
Shipping is cheap. Shipping a product from China to Europe costs less than the last 100 km by truck.
I think that indicates overvoltage. The lifetime of incandescents is proportional to V^-16 (no, this is not a typo), so a 20% overvoltage will reduce there lifetime by a factor of 20. In CFLs, you can correct for this in the electronic circuit.
In Denmark, you typically have 5 weeks of vacation, and it is being raised to 6, in addition to around 10 holidays per year (depending on what week day Christmass is on).
The US health care system is surely much more expensive than any other. IIRC, it is slightly better than other OECD nations, but you would have to be very rich to accept that it was in proportion to the extra money used.
Besides it's in the Government of China's best interest to send the US broke [...]
No it isn't. The Chinese GDP has quite a high growth rate of 8-10% pa. If China lost the US as a market, the growth rate would drop, and people who today are satisfied with the outlook of quickly becomming more well off would start rocking the boat. That is the last thing Chinas leaders want.
Or, to cut to the chase: The world is not a zero sum game.
The lists of Nobel nominees are not publically available. Claiming someone has been nominated a certain number of times is clearly a falsehood.
Now, what does WP says of this treatment? "Evidence for the effectiveness of the Budwig diet is limited as most research has only been done on cell culture studies and experiments on rats and mice with inconsistent results.[...] There is no reliable evidence available for the effectiveness of the full Budwig protocol."
That doesn't really sound like Nobel material.
Is clean room relevant to patents? I thought patents covered the idea, so it didn't matter how you got the idea, while copyright covered the source of the idea, so clean room implementations should get you out of copyright hot waters. Am I mistaken? Or is there something special about Oracles patent that makes the situation different?
As Venus does not totally blot out the sun as seen from Earth, the shadow will not be very black. As the sun parallax is very small, the shadow will hit all of Earth almost simultaniously.
With regards to number 3., the way to do it would be to fake the organ donor, so it seems you have gotten a legitimate organ. Your points 1. and 2. makes it necessary to have quite a large infrastructure in order to pull it off. Probably having 1000's of people waiting to deliver a organ. Outside of state prison systems, I don't see a way to do this. It seems* that China is doing it, so in order to get a foothold of the market, you would have to compete with an established player for whom the main cost is sunk (China have another need to have thousands of people locked up), which would be extraordinarily hard.
Slashdot Mirror
From WP: "An object is considered a PHO if its minimum orbit intersection distance (MOID) with respect to Earth is less than 0.05 AU (7,500,000 km; 4,600,000 mi) and its diameter is at least 150 m (nearly 500 ft)".
Why does TFS indicate that the distance in miles is accurate when it is just as much an approximation as the one in km?
" Experiments have been conducted on lab animals to determine animal survivability when submerged in highly oxygenated Fluorinert. Lab rats have survived for extended periods in such an environment, but invariably died due to lung trauma after removal. [...] [in the film The Abyss] several rats were shown actually breathing Fluorinert."
Their native speakers to.
The writers own native speakers who are coming to the rescue? You can't just cut short a sentence like that! The suspense is killing me!
Also a big difference is with real banks and such the money is tracked, so you get it back.
As I read TFS, the company is taking the hit themselves. "all withdrawal requests will be honored once the platform reopens." I fail to see the difference.
The market cap is not comparable to GDP. I would assume that there are far more dollars than that out there, which would be the relevant comparison, I guess.
I don't see how blocking TPB is not related to net neutrality. Net neutrality can be boiled down to "treat all package the same", which includes packages to and from TPB. The mechanism of package discrimination are different (pay us more or we won't allow this package to come through vs. we won't allow this package to come thorugh), but they are both examples of package discrimination, and thus breaks net neutrality (as I see it, at least). Of course, there is an immense differnce between an ISP deciding to do it themselves versus an ISP being ordered by a court, so they aren't equivalent in all respects.
The religious nutjobs, I have no idea how they fits in.
I understand, I wasn't trying to get you to spend a lot of money, just wondering how we could tell whether there was a smear or nor. More of a mental exercise than anything else.
:-)
In my highschool, we had some small "spectrometers" (basically just a black plastic box with a slit, a grating and a peep-hole), they can't be that expensive. Ah, yes, these*. They have teh spectrum of a fluorescent light, there is a smear, but it seems to be smaller than for the high pressure mercury light. And it doesn't seem to be mercury-based. Hmmm, wierd. Oh, well, I am going to see if I can buy one. I wouldn't have gotten that thought if not for this dialogue, thank you
uk.com? Really, slashdot? That is what you think the domain is? Wow.
While this is an interesting deveopment, it is important to note the caveats: The refractive index in silicon, the only material tested so far, is only 1.000000001. IF this theory of how this is accomplished is correct, this MIGHT be higher for heavier elements. That's a big IF.
A standard camera (which I suppose you have used to make the pictures) have a pretty lousy dynamic range, so it is conceivable that even with a sizeable contribution from the phosphor smear, the camera would not pick it up in the presence of spikes. Add to this that it is not a point source and that the diffraction grating have some diffuse scattering, and the smear might not be visible at all on the picture. It should be clearer to the naked eye, but it might be missed if you don't specifically look for it. The colours seem to be consistent with the wavelengths of mercury, but I would need to do proper measurements of distances and calculations to be sure.
As for the LED, if you look at the picture, it does seem that there is a bright spot on the far blue area, than an area with less intensity, and then a broad peak with an intensity maximum in the green and yellow. Perhaps the phosphor can be more effective at removing the exciting light when there is only one wavelength? Alternatively, it might be a LED with a UV excitation?
All of this is probably over-analysing pictures that are non-ideal (camera with low dynamic range, not a point source for the CFL, not a black background/diffuse scattering from the grating). It would be nice to have a spectrum done with a spectrometer of each of the light sources.
I think what you see is the spikes. They are (locally) stronger then the smear, so they blot out the smear so you don't see it, but it is there. This is what you can see in the spectrum I linked to earlier. If we look at a pure mercury spectrum, the first for copies in your image could correspond to four of the peaks (blue at 405 nm, cyan at 436 nm, green at 546 nm and yellow at 579 nm, the yellow is less defined, which could be because of its lower intensity). I don't know where the red copy (or copies, there seem to be at least two overlapping) comes from.
The emission wavelength of the phosphor does not depend on the excitation wavelength. In the image on the page you linked to, you would see the green spectrum regardless of whether you excited it with the entire spectrum or a single wavelength, as long as there is some overlap with the absorption spectrum. It would be a "smear" no matter what the exciting light looked like.
No, we have tested it, he was just lucky, or at least, it doesn't seem to work for any subgroup of patients we can identify. He was not on to a universal cure for cancer.
I am not sure I understand you. Let me explain the understanding I have of the process, and then you can tell me where we diverge:
CFLs: Mercury emits a series of wavelengths in quite narrow spikes, most of them in the UV. The phosphor takes these and produces continuous spectra. The resulting light is what is shown in the picture I linked to. The phosphor doesn't produce spikes.
LED lights: LED produce a rather narrow range of wavelenghts (monochrome light, at least ot the human eye). For lights, this is normally in the blue or UV area. This light excites the phosphor, which produces a continuous spectrum. The resulting light would have one spike (possibly in the UV, so it would be invisible to the human eye), the rest would be continuous.
Phosphors are not wavelength multipliers, they emit the same spectrum regardless of the incomming spectrum (as long as some of the light is in their absorption area). The data analysis done here would not work if this was not the case (for fluorescence, at least).
A good place to start are the words to two-time Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling: "Everyone should know that the 'war on cancer' is largely a fraud."
I was going to write a longer answer, but then you quoted Linus Pauling on cancer treatment. His view on that subject is the poster example of why you shouldn't rely on the words of a Nobel laureate on anything out of their main field, if that. Quoting him for wisdom on cancer treatment shows you don't know the first thing of the subject. Of course, even if you hadn't done that, your suggestion that testimonials is a good way to tell whether a treatment works shows that.
The spectrum of an incandescent bulb and a CFL is shown on wikipedia. For the CFL, the spikes are mercury emissions, the broad background is the phosphor. Phosphors emit a certain spectrum if they are irradiated within their absorption band, regardless of the incoming lights spectrum. If you are making a crude spectrum, as in your blog post, you might not see the light from the phosphor, as the spikes overwealm the detector.
Light output is approximately proportional to V^3.4
Power consumption is approximately proportional to V^1.6
Lifetime is approximately proportional to V^-16
Long living incandescents are "undervoltaged". As light/power is proportional to V^1.8, undervoltaged bulbs have lower light/power (are less efficient).
Why are we "upgrading" to bulbs that are actually inferior to the incandescents we used before?
They are inferior in some senses, and superior in other. They use a lot less energy, which is clearly a plus.
They take too long long to light
That really depends on the bulb. You can buy bulbs marked as "quick-on", which are typically at 60% in 15 seconds. While you notice the difference between 100% and 60%, the logarithmic response of our eyes make it less than you would think. It isn't instant, but I can't think of many applications that would need it faster.
don't live any longer in real world use
Mine does. And this is why anecdotal evidence is close to useless.
and have to be shipped across ~20,000 miles from China (and back) whereas the incandescents were built right here.
Shipping is cheap. Shipping a product from China to Europe costs less than the last 100 km by truck.
I think that indicates overvoltage. The lifetime of incandescents is proportional to V^-16 (no, this is not a typo), so a 20% overvoltage will reduce there lifetime by a factor of 20. In CFLs, you can correct for this in the electronic circuit.
In Denmark, you typically have 5 weeks of vacation, and it is being raised to 6, in addition to around 10 holidays per year (depending on what week day Christmass is on).
The US health care system is surely much more expensive than any other. IIRC, it is slightly better than other OECD nations, but you would have to be very rich to accept that it was in proportion to the extra money used.
Besides it's in the Government of China's best interest to send the US broke [...]
No it isn't. The Chinese GDP has quite a high growth rate of 8-10% pa. If China lost the US as a market, the growth rate would drop, and people who today are satisfied with the outlook of quickly becomming more well off would start rocking the boat. That is the last thing Chinas leaders want.
Or, to cut to the chase: The world is not a zero sum game.
The lists of Nobel nominees are not publically available. Claiming someone has been nominated a certain number of times is clearly a falsehood.
Now, what does WP says of this treatment? "Evidence for the effectiveness of the Budwig diet is limited as most research has only been done on cell culture studies and experiments on rats and mice with inconsistent results.[...] There is no reliable evidence available for the effectiveness of the full Budwig protocol."
That doesn't really sound like Nobel material.
Is clean room relevant to patents? I thought patents covered the idea, so it didn't matter how you got the idea, while copyright covered the source of the idea, so clean room implementations should get you out of copyright hot waters. Am I mistaken? Or is there something special about Oracles patent that makes the situation different?
As Venus does not totally blot out the sun as seen from Earth, the shadow will not be very black. As the sun parallax is very small, the shadow will hit all of Earth almost simultaniously.
With regards to number 3., the way to do it would be to fake the organ donor, so it seems you have gotten a legitimate organ. Your points 1. and 2. makes it necessary to have quite a large infrastructure in order to pull it off. Probably having 1000's of people waiting to deliver a organ. Outside of state prison systems, I don't see a way to do this. It seems* that China is doing it, so in order to get a foothold of the market, you would have to compete with an established player for whom the main cost is sunk (China have another need to have thousands of people locked up), which would be extraordinarily hard.
*This may just be hearsay.
Again, if it was a single gene, the left handed vs right handed ratio would be closer to 25/75.
Only if the two alleles were present in the population in equal numbers. See sickle cell anaemia for an example.