Rather, I was pointing out that the blanket accusations of fraud were not science.
If they indeed did not properly document their test protocol, then their test is indeed useless, and their paper should rightfully be torpedoed into oblivion during peer review.
BUT-- that is again not an accusation of fraud per se-- It is a reprimand for not properly documenting their experimental test protocol for independent verification via the scientific method, which is the actual purpose of the peer review process.
"Hey bitches, your paper sucks balls, because I cant fucking replicate your experiment, let alone your results! If you have that documentation on hand, and just neglected to put it in your paper, then put it in your fucking paper-- If you were too dumb to collect the needed data to replicate your experiment, your experiment is worthless because we cant verify it!"
That is NOT "Bitches be lying." It is "Bitches be incompetent." or "Bitches be negligent.":D
That too is one of the uncontrolled variables I cited that applied--
"Was the sample tampered with?"
AGAIN, catch-able with proper independent experimental replication, which is the prescribed methodology.
The below criticism-- that their methodology is fundamentally flawed due to not actually collecting valid data using wholly faulted practices, and that they did not properly document their experiment, preventing third party replication-- Is a real and valid criticism.
Which is exactly what I called for-- It is the ONLY LEGITIMATE WAY to either verify or refute this data.
Either the data is good, or the data is bad. The only way to tell is to conduct the experimental protocol as described in the literature in a fully independent test laboratory setting with completely different researchers.
I did not once say otherwise.
If you want an example of occam's razor giving a seemingly implausible explanation as the most likely-- just look at the double slit experiment data.:D
In this case, I was pointing out that having to resort to wild conjectures like "He totally fudged with the sample, and did shit to it behind people's backs" without any data to this effect, while the researchers published their data for review, places the burden of evidence on the nay-sayers. There are perfectly plausible scenarios where room temperature fusion events can occur, which would perfectly explain the isotope data, and would be necessary to get the energy flux reported.
Currently, you and others are saying "It's more likely that this guy and his so called team just shat out some numbers on a device that does not actually work, after initially being ball busted with their first paper."
What I am saying, is that this may be an actual device, that does actually work, getting a revised experiment published after properly following up with peer review feedback where they refined their experiment.
The only way to be sure, is to fucking run the experiment in an independent setting, and qualify the findings.
Casting aspersions without providing data is not science.
which I acknowledged-- Hell, the samples collected from the reactive sample for isotope spectroscopy would throw it off! Then you have skin oil contaminant from picking the thing up, noise from dust in the room settling on the thing-- all kinds of noise you would have to account for with such a large sample.
That's why I said that very tiny samples undergoing the same process with more sensitive thresholds are required as additional experiments. (Say, putting a nanoscopic sample on the end of an AFM, or a nanostructure electronic force meter, and evaluating the force exerted as it undergoes the process)
With properly controlled experimental gear, the change in mass of such small samples *IS* fully measurable with good confidence. (They can measure samples in AMU using those things!)
However, that would require for this process to be fully scalable. It may well be that such small samples are incapable of undergoing the process because they lack critical mass potential-- but that information is itself useful in understanding such mystery processes, and therefor the experiment would still be valid to conduct.
No matter how you slice it, these finding all point at further experiment.
Also, if the power delivery curve is nice and smooth, indicating a progressive reaction is producing the signal.
Intermittent chargings, as the GP suggested, would produce a very spiky power delivery curve over the observation period.
In the case of a fusion based reaction producing heavier, and more unstable isotopes, this curve should resemble a bell curve, where initial fusion events are few, but their presence catalyzes additional fusion events, until the costs of further catalysis exceeds the energy liberated and the power curve falls off as useful fuel is depleted.
And again, there's the isotope population data that needs to be addressed. Neutrons are perniciously difficult to focus into a coherent beam, because they are 1) massed particles, and 2) have no charge. This means making a sufficiently powerful neutron source to accomplish the slow population shift from one isotope to another, heavier one over the month long observation window would require a very conspicuous neutron generator, which would probably have irradiated the researchers quite profoundly--- since it would have to be strong enough to literally cause the constituent atoms in the sample to have appreciable neutron capture. (The researchers themselves, being in close proximity to the sample being bombarded by the neutron source, would likewise also be subjected to this bombardment, due to the nature of focused neutron sources --- And again, external sources of such neutrons would be quite conspicuous. I somehow strongly suspect that the researchers would ask what the giant assed neutron collimator is doing in the lab, especially with the focal point of the collimator directly where the sample is.)
So, again-- that would be a pretty damned awesome thing. A focused neutron beam would have fantastic applications, especially one that is compact enough to be inconspicuous, yet powerful enough to cause substantive neutron capture in a large sample, --OR-- One that focuses neutrons into a tight and coherent enough beam to deliver the neutrons over a sufficient distance that the neutron source is not immediately apparent to the researchers.
No matter how you slice it, the data presented is showing something very enticing for further study.
Which is one of the uncontrolled variables I specifically cited--
Are the researchers involved in any scam tactics performed by the inventor?
And, again-- the solution is to perform the experiment in complete isolation, with faithful reconstruction of the test protocol, in a completely different test lab, with completely different scientists. AKA-- Verify by independent experiment.
(Which is NOT THE SAME AT ALL as "Dont do the experiment, and immediately cry fraud citing something they 'know'." Real scientists question EVERYTHING, ESPECIALLY what they 'know'. Why else do you think that giant particle accelerators are used to test well grounded theories on particle physics? Just to affirm what they already 'know'? Fuck no-- it's to be the first to show that what everyone knew to be true is really false, and find something new.)
"That does not immediately benefit me right now, so the pursuit of knowledge as to why that seems to happen is not a wise investment."
Apply that to the value of null-results that have changed the world, but which didnt have immediate financial values. You know, things like finding the limits of thermodynamics, or bells' theorem, the outcome of the michaelson-moorley experiment, and countless others.
Under your misguided tutelage, we would all still be spouting crap about the aether-- If not still living in trees.
NONE of those explain the change in isotope species described in the article. Unless you mean he is somehow beaming concentrated neutrons through some unknown means into the device somehow, or that he is able to somehow completely replace the device with progressively more concentrated populations of heavier isotopes miraculously every time the researchers check.
Occam's razor sometimes shows that the seemingly improbable is actually the most likely explanation.
The actual definition of that particular by-rule, is that the explanation with the least complications (read, elaborate conjectures and weasel wording) is the most likely to be correct.
This device appears to produce power with an energy density many times greater than dynamite, and produces a change in isotope species of the test sample.
At this point, the test for fraud is to determine if the calculated energy released is congruent with the change in the mass energy potential of the sample before and after the experiment. Conservation of energy says that if this device used fusion, or any other nuclear power based reaction to achieve its outcome, then that energy came from mass.
They measured the energy released. Measure the difference in the mass of the sample after the 32day observation period, and compare it against the mass of the sample before the observation period. If the calculated mass value for the energy released + current mass == mass of sample before observation, we have a very difficult thing to account for, because it means the device is plausible.
If they dont match, it means the man is a fraud.
This is a testable point of data that would make fraud detection very easy, and would make people that are quick to point the fraud finger very uncomfortable if found to be true.
If the researchers did not collect this measurement, KNOWING that this device was 'supposed' to produce power via a nuclear energy process, then you have a very good grounds to seriously torpedo their published paper, and recommend additional experiment due to improper testing process. Especially since they have the equipment to measure statistical isotope species in the sample, and knew to test for it.
Granted, the difference in weight for a 140mwh value would be in the picograms or less. That just means that smaller samples with the same reaction process need to be studied so that tinier and more sensitive aparatus can measure any changes-- which would also make the "he switched the samples!" argument more convoluted in such latter experiments.
Of course, the NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL approach is to just say "There is no need to conduct that experiment, because it is clearly a fraud!"-- That's the not-science-at-all version of begging the question in a wrapper of appeal to authority fallacy, DRESSED as science.
Science is about observation, and recording data about observation, and making hypotheses that predict future observation. In science, REALITY IS KING. If the experiment has shown that energy was generated, and specific features were measured, but the experiment itself is in question-- the proper course of action is to repeat the experimental protocol in additional laboratories to eliminate the conjectured disqualifying uncontrolled variables cited.
In this case:
Were there any spurrious or anomalous EM readings near the device? (Any "beamed" energy delivered to the device would have to be of this type to interact reliably with electrical energy metering equipment.)
Was the sample ever tampered with? (Repeating the protocol simultaneously in multiple labs around the world to verify the results would exclude this, discounting some brilliantly absurd conspiracy.)
Were the researchers involved in any lucrative scam tactics with the inventor? (again, more independent testing would reveal this.)
So, in all cased, the prescribed course of action to verify definitively that this device is a fraud IS TO DO THE DAMN EXPERIMENT, REPEATEDLY.
Basically, the smartwatch just beams a tiny 3 row keyboard onto the wearer's wrist/forearm whenever it detects that the wearer's hand is in the "typing zone". Then the wearer taps away on their arm, and the smartphone registers the input.
But that would probably introduce additional battery life reductions on an already cramped device.
If by "porn", you mean "Possible realtime recording (in visible light) what the interactions of radio frequency light with soft tissues in the body are", and other radical imaging ideas, then yes. "Porn."
Or with having the chirality of all of your constituent proteins being backward, and should you desire that you would like to continue eating normal food.
There is nothing preventing photons of different wavelengths from being entangled, allowing one wavelength to expose an image, while another scans the subject-- As demonstrated by the above article. This is vastly different from normal photography.
Similarly, there shouldnt be any real reason why different polarizations couldnt be entangled.
A very sophisticated compositing scanner could be constructed that uses entanglement + interaction with a subject with simultaneous measurement to break the entanglement at the sensor. There is a great deal of benefit to having the exact same light hit many sensors.
Having detectors for the many different properties of the photon, rather than just "IS/isNOT entangled", (which is why there needs to be many CCDs with a single aperture), could reveal a wealth of information about a photographed object.
This is just random musing, but I would love to see a complex camera built using some of these entanglement properties.
Using entangled photon light sources and multiple CCDs with a single entry aperture and some beam splitters, (So the the multiple CCDs get the exact same entangled photons), I expect some very interesting photography would result.
I realize that would mean using a laser lightsource, making it unsuitable for photographing people (unless they shut their eyes), but I could definitely see such an instrument being constructed and used using conventional components.
Google is just in a snit that CyanogenMod is fantastically better than stock android, BECAUSE it gives power back to users.
For instance, the power to rescind permissions on installed apps, the ability to have finer control over CPU throttles, and of course, the removal of bunches of total horse-shit that gets bundled.
Google is more worried that CyanogenMod being a mainstream thing will affect their ability to have baked in adware out of the box, generating money for them. Not that CyanogenMod devices will fail to run 3rd party apps.
"Oh noes! Dont allow users to use fake geolocation! That will ruin our datamining operations! Oh no! Not our playstore advert shit too!? Did you REALLY just give users the ability to say "NO" to that app maker's blanket permissions requirement AFTER they said yes initially to let it install!? How will Facebook get its hentai tentacles into users' contact lists!? That removes the "Our way or the highway" tactic from the table!! AHHH!"
Seriously-- this is SOP for big companies that have "disruptive" competition-- Attempt to buy them out.
Google is probably pretty steamed at getting hand slapped right about now, which is why they are brandishing their oh-so-special google services apps like a cudgel now.
Though I do find the many ways that such devices can stimulate (in a very broad range of ways) to be very amusing given your particular Freudian issue there.;P
While these devices will probably have nutritional ratings similar to most "gluten free" snack chips (that is to say, 0 calories per serving), they typically come with a significant amount of heavy metals baked right in.
All a knockoff player needs is a file system checksum initiated rescan+index routine to probe for new ID3 tags after the filesystem changes and the USB connection is removed.
Walks the whole filesystem, checks each MP3 file it finds for the ID3 tag, references it against a small internal index file to see if it has already been catalogued, then adds/remove entries as needed.
When the user wants to "browse by genre", it just queries this catalogue, and fetches file handles.
There is *A LOT* of data you can put into an ID3 tag, including whole jpegs of the album cover!
This whole shitfest has been solved for a long, LONG time.
With the typical power curve of pure blackbody emissions: Clicky
The latter one has a single peak. The former has a much "flatter", but also noisier distribution. One can optimize at the near infra-red band, where the blackbody emission peaks consistently, and harvest the vast majority of the emitted photons. Especially since this band is also very close to the innate emission/capture band of pure silicon.
Basically, it is the result of the conservation of energy being employed. As an object heats up in a vacuum, it sheds the heat energy as increasingly more energetic photon emissions. Any substance that is not at absolute zero will emit blackbody photons. These are usually in the far infra-red spectral band, though under very high temperatures more energetic photons will be emitted. This is how your typical tungsten filament incandescent light bulb works.
This approach uses the specificity of the heated material to emit blackbody photons within a specific wavelength, regardless of the wavelengths of the light used to heat it up. However, it does not fix certain things:
1) Blackbody radiation is emitted from all sides of the emitter; it cannot be made directional. This means that the design that MIT has created, with the collector sandwiched against the emitter, will be at most 50% effective (When used with a light-source derived heat source). This is because some non-trivial portion of the re-emitted light will be beamed off the back of the device, where there is no collector to catch it!
2) To be a useful device, an enormous number of blackbody photons will have to be emitted. This means the emitter has to be bitching hot.
3) To be really efficient, the device must be as heavily insulated against thermal loss as possible. This means it wont be thin and light.
This system uses blackbody emission to re-radiate absorbed photons within a specific bandwidth, which can be selectively optimized for.
However, since it uses blackbody emission, it does not explicitly NEED light as the energy source. Any kind of heating will suffice. This is really just a very fancy means of converting entropic energy into something useful. Could be very useful when coupled with radio-isotope decay systems, for instance. (This, coupled with existing RTG tech, could produce more efficient RTGs)
Sadly, it requires that large numbers of useful photons be produced from the emitting blackbody source, which means it needs some pretty non-trivial temperatures. This isn't going to be something that is used in normal residential settings.
This is true for "general" treatments. (Treatments applied to the whole body, EG-- "General Anesthetic") However, there are also local treatments that are more targeted that can change the environment locally.
Several such treatments exist. In the feild of cancer specifically, you have the various direct radiation treatments, the various nanoparticle+radiowave treatments, and of course, local excision treatments.
In the case of colon cancer, the inner wall of the colon has evoloved to handle some pretty extreme changes in pH, and also insane levels of salinity. Circumstances that if presented in the rest of the body would kill the patient in minutes. (If not seconds).
This tissue is also very thin, only a few millimeters thick.
The crime that the OP really has comitted is assuming that all cancers are interchangable as a general category. They arent.
In the case of colon cancer, a concentrated baking soda enema (or even a supository) would work to keep the ambient pH inside the colon quite low, and would be in direct or nearly direct contact with the cancer spreading in the colon wall at the same time. Healthy colon cells would be easily able to handle this environment, but diseased ones would not.
The major risk of complication comes from disruption of GI Flora from prolonged alterations of the pH in that environment (and from administration of probably not-very-sterile sodium bicarbonate solution directly introducing new microbial strains), and from the risk of possible impaction (if using a supository) or rupture (from overzealous enema use)
As long as the cancer has not yet metasticised, there is no real compelling reason not to couple such a clinically untested treatment like bicarbonate exposure along with a more well documented anti-cancer regimen, but some caveats apply. (If surgery was used to remove the cancer from the colon wall, then common sense applies. Dont use enemas unless directed to do so by your physician. You DONT want your colon to rupture, especially when you are immunosuppressed from having cancer.)
Just understand that not all cancers are created equally. Colorectal cancer is a very real, epidemic form of cancer. However, the ways you treat it are very different from how you would treat, eg, blood cell type cancers, or cancers in bone tissue. You dont need general application of treatment with some forms of cancer.
Mouons are interesting things. Too bad that they need to have tremendous energies behind them to exist for any useful period of time-- As you have pointed out, they can and do cause damage.
It would be nice if they were more easily contained and or directed; Mouon induced fusion would be a very interesting thing to explore if focused high energy mouons were a thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I admit to not reading their paper.
Rather, I was pointing out that the blanket accusations of fraud were not science.
If they indeed did not properly document their test protocol, then their test is indeed useless, and their paper should rightfully be torpedoed into oblivion during peer review.
BUT-- that is again not an accusation of fraud per se-- It is a reprimand for not properly documenting their experimental test protocol for independent verification via the scientific method, which is the actual purpose of the peer review process.
"Hey bitches, your paper sucks balls, because I cant fucking replicate your experiment, let alone your results! If you have that documentation on hand, and just neglected to put it in your paper, then put it in your fucking paper-- If you were too dumb to collect the needed data to replicate your experiment, your experiment is worthless because we cant verify it!"
That is NOT "Bitches be lying." It is "Bitches be incompetent." or "Bitches be negligent." :D
That too is one of the uncontrolled variables I cited that applied--
"Was the sample tampered with?"
AGAIN, catch-able with proper independent experimental replication, which is the prescribed methodology.
The below criticism-- that their methodology is fundamentally flawed due to not actually collecting valid data using wholly faulted practices, and that they did not properly document their experiment, preventing third party replication-- Is a real and valid criticism.
Which is exactly what I called for-- It is the ONLY LEGITIMATE WAY to either verify or refute this data.
Either the data is good, or the data is bad. The only way to tell is to conduct the experimental protocol as described in the literature in a fully independent test laboratory setting with completely different researchers.
I did not once say otherwise.
If you want an example of occam's razor giving a seemingly implausible explanation as the most likely-- just look at the double slit experiment data. :D
In this case, I was pointing out that having to resort to wild conjectures like "He totally fudged with the sample, and did shit to it behind people's backs" without any data to this effect, while the researchers published their data for review, places the burden of evidence on the nay-sayers. There are perfectly plausible scenarios where room temperature fusion events can occur, which would perfectly explain the isotope data, and would be necessary to get the energy flux reported.
Currently, you and others are saying "It's more likely that this guy and his so called team just shat out some numbers on a device that does not actually work, after initially being ball busted with their first paper."
What I am saying, is that this may be an actual device, that does actually work, getting a revised experiment published after properly following up with peer review feedback where they refined their experiment.
The only way to be sure, is to fucking run the experiment in an independent setting, and qualify the findings.
Casting aspersions without providing data is not science.
which I acknowledged-- Hell, the samples collected from the reactive sample for isotope spectroscopy would throw it off! Then you have skin oil contaminant from picking the thing up, noise from dust in the room settling on the thing-- all kinds of noise you would have to account for with such a large sample.
That's why I said that very tiny samples undergoing the same process with more sensitive thresholds are required as additional experiments. (Say, putting a nanoscopic sample on the end of an AFM, or a nanostructure electronic force meter, and evaluating the force exerted as it undergoes the process)
With properly controlled experimental gear, the change in mass of such small samples *IS* fully measurable with good confidence. (They can measure samples in AMU using those things!)
However, that would require for this process to be fully scalable. It may well be that such small samples are incapable of undergoing the process because they lack critical mass potential-- but that information is itself useful in understanding such mystery processes, and therefor the experiment would still be valid to conduct.
No matter how you slice it, these finding all point at further experiment.
Also, if the power delivery curve is nice and smooth, indicating a progressive reaction is producing the signal.
Intermittent chargings, as the GP suggested, would produce a very spiky power delivery curve over the observation period.
In the case of a fusion based reaction producing heavier, and more unstable isotopes, this curve should resemble a bell curve, where initial fusion events are few, but their presence catalyzes additional fusion events, until the costs of further catalysis exceeds the energy liberated and the power curve falls off as useful fuel is depleted.
And again, there's the isotope population data that needs to be addressed. Neutrons are perniciously difficult to focus into a coherent beam, because they are 1) massed particles, and 2) have no charge. This means making a sufficiently powerful neutron source to accomplish the slow population shift from one isotope to another, heavier one over the month long observation window would require a very conspicuous neutron generator, which would probably have irradiated the researchers quite profoundly--- since it would have to be strong enough to literally cause the constituent atoms in the sample to have appreciable neutron capture. (The researchers themselves, being in close proximity to the sample being bombarded by the neutron source, would likewise also be subjected to this bombardment, due to the nature of focused neutron sources --- And again, external sources of such neutrons would be quite conspicuous. I somehow strongly suspect that the researchers would ask what the giant assed neutron collimator is doing in the lab, especially with the focal point of the collimator directly where the sample is.)
So, again-- that would be a pretty damned awesome thing. A focused neutron beam would have fantastic applications, especially one that is compact enough to be inconspicuous, yet powerful enough to cause substantive neutron capture in a large sample, --OR-- One that focuses neutrons into a tight and coherent enough beam to deliver the neutrons over a sufficient distance that the neutron source is not immediately apparent to the researchers.
No matter how you slice it, the data presented is showing something very enticing for further study.
Which is one of the uncontrolled variables I specifically cited--
Are the researchers involved in any scam tactics performed by the inventor?
And, again-- the solution is to perform the experiment in complete isolation, with faithful reconstruction of the test protocol, in a completely different test lab, with completely different scientists. AKA-- Verify by independent experiment.
(Which is NOT THE SAME AT ALL as "Dont do the experiment, and immediately cry fraud citing something they 'know'." Real scientists question EVERYTHING, ESPECIALLY what they 'know'. Why else do you think that giant particle accelerators are used to test well grounded theories on particle physics? Just to affirm what they already 'know'? Fuck no-- it's to be the first to show that what everyone knew to be true is really false, and find something new.)
How short sighted.
"That does not immediately benefit me right now, so the pursuit of knowledge as to why that seems to happen is not a wise investment."
Apply that to the value of null-results that have changed the world, but which didnt have immediate financial values. You know, things like finding the limits of thermodynamics, or bells' theorem, the outcome of the michaelson-moorley experiment, and countless others.
Under your misguided tutelage, we would all still be spouting crap about the aether-- If not still living in trees.
Your sensibilities completely preclude the very NOTION of fundamental research.
I am VERY VERY happy that people like you are not in charge.
NONE of those explain the change in isotope species described in the article. Unless you mean he is somehow beaming concentrated neutrons through some unknown means into the device somehow, or that he is able to somehow completely replace the device with progressively more concentrated populations of heavier isotopes miraculously every time the researchers check.
Occam's razor sometimes shows that the seemingly improbable is actually the most likely explanation.
The actual definition of that particular by-rule, is that the explanation with the least complications (read, elaborate conjectures and weasel wording) is the most likely to be correct.
This device appears to produce power with an energy density many times greater than dynamite, and produces a change in isotope species of the test sample.
At this point, the test for fraud is to determine if the calculated energy released is congruent with the change in the mass energy potential of the sample before and after the experiment. Conservation of energy says that if this device used fusion, or any other nuclear power based reaction to achieve its outcome, then that energy came from mass.
They measured the energy released. Measure the difference in the mass of the sample after the 32day observation period, and compare it against the mass of the sample before the observation period. If the calculated mass value for the energy released + current mass == mass of sample before observation, we have a very difficult thing to account for, because it means the device is plausible.
If they dont match, it means the man is a fraud.
This is a testable point of data that would make fraud detection very easy, and would make people that are quick to point the fraud finger very uncomfortable if found to be true.
If the researchers did not collect this measurement, KNOWING that this device was 'supposed' to produce power via a nuclear energy process, then you have a very good grounds to seriously torpedo their published paper, and recommend additional experiment due to improper testing process. Especially since they have the equipment to measure statistical isotope species in the sample, and knew to test for it.
Granted, the difference in weight for a 140mwh value would be in the picograms or less. That just means that smaller samples with the same reaction process need to be studied so that tinier and more sensitive aparatus can measure any changes-- which would also make the "he switched the samples!" argument more convoluted in such latter experiments.
Of course, the NOT SCIENTIFIC AT ALL approach is to just say "There is no need to conduct that experiment, because it is clearly a fraud!"-- That's the not-science-at-all version of begging the question in a wrapper of appeal to authority fallacy, DRESSED as science.
Science is about observation, and recording data about observation, and making hypotheses that predict future observation. In science, REALITY IS KING. If the experiment has shown that energy was generated, and specific features were measured, but the experiment itself is in question-- the proper course of action is to repeat the experimental protocol in additional laboratories to eliminate the conjectured disqualifying uncontrolled variables cited.
In this case:
Were there any spurrious or anomalous EM readings near the device? (Any "beamed" energy delivered to the device would have to be of this type to interact reliably with electrical energy metering equipment.)
Was the sample ever tampered with? (Repeating the protocol simultaneously in multiple labs around the world to verify the results would exclude this, discounting some brilliantly absurd conspiracy.)
Were the researchers involved in any lucrative scam tactics with the inventor? (again, more independent testing would reveal this.)
So, in all cased, the prescribed course of action to verify definitively that this device is a fraud IS TO DO THE DAMN EXPERIMENT, REPEATEDLY.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT KILLED THE ORIG
Ahh, The eponymous doubleshit gum.
The gum EVERYONE gives two shits over.
Dont worry, candy coated shit pills may be a real thing now, but then again, so are fecal borne parasite pills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Got asthma? Crones disease? Try our revolutionary parasite therapy!
I think a laser projected keyboard that projects onto the side of the forearm or wrist would make more sense.
Something like these--
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UT...
coupled with the projector technology that was incorporated into some phones a few years back:
http://www.gizmochina.com/2012...
Basically, the smartwatch just beams a tiny 3 row keyboard onto the wearer's wrist/forearm whenever it detects that the wearer's hand is in the "typing zone". Then the wearer taps away on their arm, and the smartphone registers the input.
But that would probably introduce additional battery life reductions on an already cramped device.
If by "porn", you mean "Possible realtime recording (in visible light) what the interactions of radio frequency light with soft tissues in the body are", and other radical imaging ideas, then yes. "Porn."
Or with having the chirality of all of your constituent proteins being backward, and should you desire that you would like to continue eating normal food.
Untrue.
http://news.nationalgeographic...
There is nothing preventing photons of different wavelengths from being entangled, allowing one wavelength to expose an image, while another scans the subject-- As demonstrated by the above article. This is vastly different from normal photography.
Similarly, there shouldnt be any real reason why different polarizations couldnt be entangled.
A very sophisticated compositing scanner could be constructed that uses entanglement + interaction with a subject with simultaneous measurement to break the entanglement at the sensor. There is a great deal of benefit to having the exact same light hit many sensors.
Even in regular photography, you can get HDR this way.
http://www.wired.com/2010/09/c...
Here's an example of such "Interesting" photography.
http://news.nationalgeographic...
Having detectors for the many different properties of the photon, rather than just "IS/isNOT entangled", (which is why there needs to be many CCDs with a single aperture), could reveal a wealth of information about a photographed object.
This is just random musing, but I would love to see a complex camera built using some of these entanglement properties.
Using entangled photon light sources and multiple CCDs with a single entry aperture and some beam splitters, (So the the multiple CCDs get the exact same entangled photons), I expect some very interesting photography would result.
I realize that would mean using a laser lightsource, making it unsuitable for photographing people (unless they shut their eyes), but I could definitely see such an instrument being constructed and used using conventional components.
Google is just in a snit that CyanogenMod is fantastically better than stock android, BECAUSE it gives power back to users.
For instance, the power to rescind permissions on installed apps, the ability to have finer control over CPU throttles, and of course, the removal of bunches of total horse-shit that gets bundled.
Google is more worried that CyanogenMod being a mainstream thing will affect their ability to have baked in adware out of the box, generating money for them. Not that CyanogenMod devices will fail to run 3rd party apps.
"Oh noes! Dont allow users to use fake geolocation! That will ruin our datamining operations! Oh no! Not our playstore advert shit too!? Did you REALLY just give users the ability to say "NO" to that app maker's blanket permissions requirement AFTER they said yes initially to let it install!? How will Facebook get its hentai tentacles into users' contact lists!? That removes the "Our way or the highway" tactic from the table!! AHHH!"
Seriously-- this is SOP for big companies that have "disruptive" competition-- Attempt to buy them out.
Google is probably pretty steamed at getting hand slapped right about now, which is why they are brandishing their oh-so-special google services apps like a cudgel now.
I think so...
Though I do find the many ways that such devices can stimulate (in a very broad range of ways) to be very amusing given your particular Freudian issue there. ;P
That's unfortunate.
While these devices will probably have nutritional ratings similar to most "gluten free" snack chips (that is to say, 0 calories per serving), they typically come with a significant amount of heavy metals baked right in.
Oh, and don't forget the arsenic.
They probably wont taste very good either.
MP3s have had metadata since the 90s, when the ID3 tag was introduced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
All a knockoff player needs is a file system checksum initiated rescan+index routine to probe for new ID3 tags after the filesystem changes and the USB connection is removed.
Walks the whole filesystem, checks each MP3 file it finds for the ID3 tag, references it against a small internal index file to see if it has already been catalogued, then adds/remove entries as needed.
When the user wants to "browse by genre", it just queries this catalogue, and fetches file handles.
There is *A LOT* of data you can put into an ID3 tag, including whole jpegs of the album cover!
This whole shitfest has been solved for a long, LONG time.
True, however the steepness of the peak is relevant.
Compare the spectral footprint of sunlight at sea level:
Clicky
With the typical power curve of pure blackbody emissions:
Clicky
The latter one has a single peak. The former has a much "flatter", but also noisier distribution. One can optimize at the near infra-red band, where the blackbody emission peaks consistently, and harvest the vast majority of the emitted photons. Especially since this band is also very close to the innate emission/capture band of pure silicon.
clicky
This means that PV cells tailored for near-IR and IR capture will be WILDLY efficient with this setup.
Not a heat engine.
This is a black body emission system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Basically, it is the result of the conservation of energy being employed. As an object heats up in a vacuum, it sheds the heat energy as increasingly more energetic photon emissions. Any substance that is not at absolute zero will emit blackbody photons. These are usually in the far infra-red spectral band, though under very high temperatures more energetic photons will be emitted. This is how your typical tungsten filament incandescent light bulb works.
This approach uses the specificity of the heated material to emit blackbody photons within a specific wavelength, regardless of the wavelengths of the light used to heat it up. However, it does not fix certain things:
1) Blackbody radiation is emitted from all sides of the emitter; it cannot be made directional. This means that the design that MIT has created, with the collector sandwiched against the emitter, will be at most 50% effective (When used with a light-source derived heat source). This is because some non-trivial portion of the re-emitted light will be beamed off the back of the device, where there is no collector to catch it!
2) To be a useful device, an enormous number of blackbody photons will have to be emitted. This means the emitter has to be bitching hot.
3) To be really efficient, the device must be as heavily insulated against thermal loss as possible. This means it wont be thin and light.
This system uses blackbody emission to re-radiate absorbed photons within a specific bandwidth, which can be selectively optimized for.
However, since it uses blackbody emission, it does not explicitly NEED light as the energy source. Any kind of heating will suffice. This is really just a very fancy means of converting entropic energy into something useful. Could be very useful when coupled with radio-isotope decay systems, for instance. (This, coupled with existing RTG tech, could produce more efficient RTGs)
Sadly, it requires that large numbers of useful photons be produced from the emitting blackbody source, which means it needs some pretty non-trivial temperatures. This isn't going to be something that is used in normal residential settings.
This is true for "general" treatments. (Treatments applied to the whole body, EG-- "General Anesthetic") However, there are also local treatments that are more targeted that can change the environment locally.
Several such treatments exist. In the feild of cancer specifically, you have the various direct radiation treatments, the various nanoparticle+radiowave treatments, and of course, local excision treatments.
In the case of colon cancer, the inner wall of the colon has evoloved to handle some pretty extreme changes in pH, and also insane levels of salinity. Circumstances that if presented in the rest of the body would kill the patient in minutes. (If not seconds).
This tissue is also very thin, only a few millimeters thick.
The crime that the OP really has comitted is assuming that all cancers are interchangable as a general category. They arent.
In the case of colon cancer, a concentrated baking soda enema (or even a supository) would work to keep the ambient pH inside the colon quite low, and would be in direct or nearly direct contact with the cancer spreading in the colon wall at the same time. Healthy colon cells would be easily able to handle this environment, but diseased ones would not.
The major risk of complication comes from disruption of GI Flora from prolonged alterations of the pH in that environment (and from administration of probably not-very-sterile sodium bicarbonate solution directly introducing new microbial strains), and from the risk of possible impaction (if using a supository) or rupture (from overzealous enema use)
As long as the cancer has not yet metasticised, there is no real compelling reason not to couple such a clinically untested treatment like bicarbonate exposure along with a more well documented anti-cancer regimen, but some caveats apply. (If surgery was used to remove the cancer from the colon wall, then common sense applies. Dont use enemas unless directed to do so by your physician. You DONT want your colon to rupture, especially when you are immunosuppressed from having cancer.)
Just understand that not all cancers are created equally. Colorectal cancer is a very real, epidemic form of cancer. However, the ways you treat it are very different from how you would treat, eg, blood cell type cancers, or cancers in bone tissue. You dont need general application of treatment with some forms of cancer.
Mouons are interesting things. Too bad that they need to have tremendous energies behind them to exist for any useful period of time-- As you have pointed out, they can and do cause damage.
It would be nice if they were more easily contained and or directed; Mouon induced fusion would be a very interesting thing to explore if focused high energy mouons were a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Firing such a beam through some hot water would be a very interesting thing indeed.