And how does the Apple approach help against this? Have a three week wait before your fix does evil things, without a code audit it will never get caught.
No, you don't get sand. The silicon equivalent of organic compounds are polysilanes, not polysiloxanes. Making them seems to have been a rather popular niche in the 70's. However, they are unstable, as Si can form more then 4 bonds, so isomerisation is much more rapid than with carbon.
The reason 90 % of the known compounds are organic is because a) there is amble supply different carbon-based compounds to manipulate, as life has made sure, and b) they are more interesting as pharmaceuticals then inorganics. Based on pure chemistry, boron is nearly as versatile as carbon, but starting blocks for boron chemistry is harder to come by, as is funding.
The three days are prediction, if that word is to make any sense. The three seconds could be prediction, but is probably detection. And three days prediction of an earthquake would be really big, you can evacuate a lot of people in three days.
I did not mean to imply that it wasn't interesting, I just wanted to point out the difference between that and the article, and offer an explanation for your anecdote.
How did you know that my secret identity was Peter Pedantic?
it's not that you "don't know" or "can't know" which path, which crystal, which whatever -- it really is "both" (e.g. "both paths", "both crystals").
Doesn't that depend on the interpretation? In the Copenhagen intepretation, it is both. In the many-world interpretation, it does both, but in two different universes. In the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, it follows one path, but the wave-function follows both.
That is detection, not prediction. There are several different types of tremors coming from earthquakes, and they travel at different speeds. The toads probably detect some of the faster ones that you don't. They then go quite just before the ones you can detect arrives.
given a repeated throw using the exact same starting situation I would be surprised if the outcomes were truly random. I believe in Craps they make you throw in a certain way (hard enough) to basically guarantee unpredictability.
I'm not quite sure. IIRC, a pencil standing on its tip will fall in 15 seconds, due to the quantum uncertainty of its starting position and speed.
No amount of hidden variables can explain Bell inequalities.
No amount of LOCAL hidden variables can explain the Bell inequalities.
Isn't the universe deterministic in the many-world interpretation? Every option will always be tried, even though people residing in the universe can not experience that.
GPP didn't specify the distrubution. They could come from a d10. How long time do you have to shake a die for quantum fluctuations to make the result (quantum) random? It might be surprisingly small. IIRC, applying Heisenbergs uncertainty principle to a pencil standing on it's tip shows that within 15 seconds, it will drop.
Red pills only work better as stimulants. If you want a depressant placebo effect, blue pills are better. Larger pills are more effective. Two pills are more effective than one. An injection works better than a pill (in general, the more interventive the treatment is, the bigger the placebo effect).
Dehydration causes your body to produce cortisol, a stress-induced steroidal hormone.
Cortisol suppresses your body's production of white blood cells.
White blood cells naturally attack cancer cells (some types of cancer cells under some circumstances anyway), killing many cells before they have a chance to take hold and form a tumor.
Therefore insufficient water intake increases your risk of cancer.
Q.E.D.
No, sorry, you have not demonstrated that dehydration increases the risk of cancer. You have shown a viable hypothesis as to how it could do that. Without clinical evidence, we don't know if the body has some mechanism that offsets the effect. If it was that simple, we would have a much higher hit rate with proposed medicine. We could skip right from in vitro to phase one human trials, and from there to selling it.
A freezer doesn't need to be on continously. In case of power outage, it takes a couple of days before the food in a full freezer starts to thaw. Now, of course, you don't want it to go anywhere near that, but waiting a couple of hours to turn on the compressor normally won't take the food out of the safe temperature zone. As the GGP put it, the smart meter wont demand that the freezer turns off, but will let it know that it would be appreciated if it did not turn on. The freezer can then decide whether it can wait, or whether it is so hot that it needs to turn on.
What do you mean by "directly detect"? Most detectors aren't direct, they work by cleverly assuring that whatever we want to detect produces charged particles, some light or some heat. But we can go further: The light is not directly detected, it produces a charge which is detected. Charges aren't detected directly, either, they produce a current which is detected. AFAICT, the only meaningful way to draw the line is by our nervous system: Something is directly detected if it effects a response in our CNS. The only place in modern science that I am aware that happens is in olfactometry, and it definitely doesn't happen anywhere in the science of particle physics.
In general, we don't eat carnivores (of course, exceptions exist). There is just too much filth concentrated in them for that to be a good idea (both natural toxins and diseases). We also have a tendency to not eat the species we form close bonds to (which explains the north American aversion to horse meat). There are probably not any species which more often form close bonds to than dogs.
I think the most constructive thing here is if I cut to the chase:
It is my oppinion the there are serious problems with oil and gas drilling, and some of them leads to flammable drinking water, but none of them have anything in particular to do with fracking. They might crop up at places where fracking is used, but focusing of fracking is just going to remove the focus from other types of petrochemical drilling, which have just as much of a chance of giving problems.
How do you know that the water has not always contained the same amount of methane? Any written accounts made before fracking began? If not, the most likely explanation is that fracking taking places kilometers down does not contaminate water wells tens of meters deep.
And please don't use clips from Gasland as a source, the burning water there has been examined, the methane is from natural sources. It is a bad idea to drill your well into a natural gas deposit, and even worse to claim it is other peoples fault that you water is flammable afterwards. I am sure there are people who have gotten flammable drinking water as a result of oil or gas mining, why use an example where that is demonstrably not the case? It simply makes it far too easy to dismiss any reasonable complaints.
Yes, funny how burning drinking water never existed before. I know I have never tested my drinking water for flammability (I would feel slightly silly trying to ignite water), is it possible that they always had flammable water but never tested it before?
Furthermore, it's not like water is liquid, making comparisons between the Gulf of Mexico and drinking water trapped in rock silly.
If your point had been that oil/gas spills are possible on the surface, where the drilling operation is taking place, your point would have been valid. That was not what is being discussed, so your comment is little more than trolling.
It's hard to believe that fracking, taking place kilometres deep, should affect drinking water from tens of meters down. A much more likely explanation is that natural gas has always seeped into the water, but that people doesn't test the flammability of their water (I know I have newer tested the flammability of mine) until some company performs scary things in the neighbourhood. It seems the video you link to is a part of Gasland, where the most prominent case is due to natural causes, even though the movie indicates that it is linked to fracking. There is some processes where mining gas can lead to flammable drinking water, but none directly related to fracking.
I don't think the pressure really affects the thickness of cell membrane needed, the pressure within the cell is the same as the pressure outside the cell, so the cell membrane doesn't have to withstand any pressure. It does affect which lipids to use in the cell membrane, they need to be liquid (for a quite weird definition of liquid), and the melting points will be higher ion the high-pressure environment.
Slashdot Mirror
And how does the Apple approach help against this? Have a three week wait before your fix does evil things, without a code audit it will never get caught.
Which specific licenses are you talking about?
No, you don't get sand. The silicon equivalent of organic compounds are polysilanes, not polysiloxanes. Making them seems to have been a rather popular niche in the 70's. However, they are unstable, as Si can form more then 4 bonds, so isomerisation is much more rapid than with carbon.
The reason 90 % of the known compounds are organic is because a) there is amble supply different carbon-based compounds to manipulate, as life has made sure, and b) they are more interesting as pharmaceuticals then inorganics. Based on pure chemistry, boron is nearly as versatile as carbon, but starting blocks for boron chemistry is harder to come by, as is funding.
The three days are prediction, if that word is to make any sense. The three seconds could be prediction, but is probably detection. And three days prediction of an earthquake would be really big, you can evacuate a lot of people in three days.
I did not mean to imply that it wasn't interesting, I just wanted to point out the difference between that and the article, and offer an explanation for your anecdote.
How did you know that my secret identity was Peter Pedantic?
it's not that you "don't know" or "can't know" which path, which crystal, which whatever -- it really is "both" (e.g. "both paths", "both crystals").
Doesn't that depend on the interpretation? In the Copenhagen intepretation, it is both. In the many-world interpretation, it does both, but in two different universes. In the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, it follows one path, but the wave-function follows both.
That is detection, not prediction. There are several different types of tremors coming from earthquakes, and they travel at different speeds. The toads probably detect some of the faster ones that you don't. They then go quite just before the ones you can detect arrives.
given a repeated throw using the exact same starting situation I would be surprised if the outcomes were truly random. I believe in Craps they make you throw in a certain way (hard enough) to basically guarantee unpredictability.
I'm not quite sure. IIRC, a pencil standing on its tip will fall in 15 seconds, due to the quantum uncertainty of its starting position and speed.
No amount of hidden variables can explain Bell inequalities.
No amount of LOCAL hidden variables can explain the Bell inequalities.
Isn't the universe deterministic in the many-world interpretation? Every option will always be tried, even though people residing in the universe can not experience that.
GPP didn't specify the distrubution. They could come from a d10.
How long time do you have to shake a die for quantum fluctuations to make the result (quantum) random? It might be surprisingly small. IIRC, applying Heisenbergs uncertainty principle to a pencil standing on it's tip shows that within 15 seconds, it will drop.
Actually, it seems that ... exercise ... increases the male fertility.
Yeah, yeah, I know, whoosh.
Which colour the pill is also matters, depending on which effect you want: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2550102&cid=38211868 And no, I don't have the original citations either :-(
Red pills only work better as stimulants. If you want a depressant placebo effect, blue pills are better. Larger pills are more effective. Two pills are more effective than one. An injection works better than a pill (in general, the more interventive the treatment is, the bigger the placebo effect).
Dehydration causes your body to produce cortisol, a stress-induced steroidal hormone.
Cortisol suppresses your body's production of white blood cells.
White blood cells naturally attack cancer cells (some types of cancer cells under some circumstances anyway), killing many cells before they have a chance to take hold and form a tumor.
Therefore insufficient water intake increases your risk of cancer.
Q.E.D.
No, sorry, you have not demonstrated that dehydration increases the risk of cancer. You have shown a viable hypothesis as to how it could do that. Without clinical evidence, we don't know if the body has some mechanism that offsets the effect. If it was that simple, we would have a much higher hit rate with proposed medicine. We could skip right from in vitro to phase one human trials, and from there to selling it.
A freezer doesn't need to be on continously. In case of power outage, it takes a couple of days before the food in a full freezer starts to thaw. Now, of course, you don't want it to go anywhere near that, but waiting a couple of hours to turn on the compressor normally won't take the food out of the safe temperature zone. As the GGP put it, the smart meter wont demand that the freezer turns off, but will let it know that it would be appreciated if it did not turn on. The freezer can then decide whether it can wait, or whether it is so hot that it needs to turn on.
What do you mean by "directly detect"? Most detectors aren't direct, they work by cleverly assuring that whatever we want to detect produces charged particles, some light or some heat. But we can go further: The light is not directly detected, it produces a charge which is detected. Charges aren't detected directly, either, they produce a current which is detected. AFAICT, the only meaningful way to draw the line is by our nervous system: Something is directly detected if it effects a response in our CNS. The only place in modern science that I am aware that happens is in olfactometry, and it definitely doesn't happen anywhere in the science of particle physics.
Ideally you want all courts, given the same evidence, to reach the same conclusion. Juries are anything but that.
FTFY
In general, we don't eat carnivores (of course, exceptions exist). There is just too much filth concentrated in them for that to be a good idea (both natural toxins and diseases). We also have a tendency to not eat the species we form close bonds to (which explains the north American aversion to horse meat). There are probably not any species which more often form close bonds to than dogs.
I think the most constructive thing here is if I cut to the chase:
It is my oppinion the there are serious problems with oil and gas drilling, and some of them leads to flammable drinking water, but none of them have anything in particular to do with fracking. They might crop up at places where fracking is used, but focusing of fracking is just going to remove the focus from other types of petrochemical drilling, which have just as much of a chance of giving problems.
How do you know that the water has not always contained the same amount of methane? Any written accounts made before fracking began? If not, the most likely explanation is that fracking taking places kilometers down does not contaminate water wells tens of meters deep.
And please don't use clips from Gasland as a source, the burning water there has been examined, the methane is from natural sources. It is a bad idea to drill your well into a natural gas deposit, and even worse to claim it is other peoples fault that you water is flammable afterwards. I am sure there are people who have gotten flammable drinking water as a result of oil or gas mining, why use an example where that is demonstrably not the case? It simply makes it far too easy to dismiss any reasonable complaints.
Yes, funny how burning drinking water never existed before. I know I have never tested my drinking water for flammability (I would feel slightly silly trying to ignite water), is it possible that they always had flammable water but never tested it before?
Furthermore, it's not like water is liquid, making comparisons between the Gulf of Mexico and drinking water trapped in rock silly.
If your point had been that oil/gas spills are possible on the surface, where the drilling operation is taking place, your point would have been valid. That was not what is being discussed, so your comment is little more than trolling.
It's hard to believe that fracking, taking place kilometres deep, should affect drinking water from tens of meters down. A much more likely explanation is that natural gas has always seeped into the water, but that people doesn't test the flammability of their water (I know I have newer tested the flammability of mine) until some company performs scary things in the neighbourhood. It seems the video you link to is a part of Gasland, where the most prominent case is due to natural causes, even though the movie indicates that it is linked to fracking. There is some processes where mining gas can lead to flammable drinking water, but none directly related to fracking.
I don't think the pressure really affects the thickness of cell membrane needed, the pressure within the cell is the same as the pressure outside the cell, so the cell membrane doesn't have to withstand any pressure. It does affect which lipids to use in the cell membrane, they need to be liquid (for a quite weird definition of liquid), and the melting points will be higher ion the high-pressure environment.
Aerogel has a density of about 30g/l, whereas air has one near 1g/l. Aerogel is far too heavy.