IIRC, the "pig powder" you're referring to is just powdered cellular matrix (basically pig tissue with the cells themselves removed). I remember reading that there was a study showing that this powdered cellular matrix aided regenerative healing if placed on a fresh wound. It wouldn't replace scar tissue with normal tissue, but would instead prevent the scar tissue from being produced in the first place.
Humans don't hibernate though. (although there are suggestions that it might be possible to trigger a hibernating state in humans/other non-hibernating mammals) It could be other factors related to hibernation that allow bears to heal regeneratively, not just a lowered body temperature.
You would, but geologists wouldn't. They are used to what rocks and minerals look like under our own earthly lighting. As such it makes sense to adjust the color of the image to match earth-normal lighting conditions.
Yes, and when I was in kindergarten, I remember my teacher rounding all the kids up to watch the launch and talking about how there was a teacher on-board. I also remember our teacher suddenly turning off the TV and changing the subject to something else. It may not have been prime time, but there were an awful lot of people watching that launch.
(Mercedes, for instance, has had vehicles which can predict a panic stop and preemptively apply full-on ABS braking for well over a decade, using nothing more than some fancy software, some potentiometers, and perhaps a more-substantial-than-usual ABS pump.)
I owned a Mazda 3 that had this too, but it seemed a bit too sensitive. On many occasions in rush hour traffic, I found myself having to quickly pull my foot off of the brake because the car was suddenly providing too much braking force. (didn't want to get rear ended)
Aircraft of course fail badly (see the air france crash from brazil to paris) when the sensors start getting bad data.
The autopilot automatically disengaged when it decided that it couldn't trust the air speed sensors, but from what I've read, the autopilot still could have been re-engaged in that state. If the pilots had re-engaged the auto-pilot, then the computer would have corrected the high angle of attack that caused the plane to stall and ultimately crash.
Not mass, but perhaps inertia? However, if you are able to cancel out part of the inertia of an object, what would that do to it's temperature? The vibration of the atoms and molecules of an object is collectively measured as temperature, and reducing inertia would conceivably affect that vibration. (after all, energy must be conserved) My guess is that it would increase the frequency of the vibration. Would this make it behave as though its temperature has increased? Would melting/boiling points drop?
Perhaps the proximity to the threshold is the reason that vacuum is seething with virtual particles? If the Higgs mass were slightly less, would the virtual particles be slightly less virtual?
That experiment works because at that altitude there is still a small amount of atmosphere. I think that DJRumpy was referring to the fact that the lowest energy state of a vacuum is non-zero. If it has energy, can you really call it empty?
Not only that, if you cancelled out some inertia, wouldn't that cause the frequency of the vibrations of molecules/atoms to increase? The energy making up the temperature of an object needs to be conserved. A higher frequency vibration might cause something to act as though it's hotter than it really is. Maybe it would lower boiling points, etc. That would be very bad for living things, so inertia cancellation for spacecraft/aircraft, etc might be infeasible. It has interesting applications for industry though and might make it possible to achieve fusion at lower temperatures.
Aluminum is indeed very energy intensive to refine from ore, but it is very easy and relatively low energy to recycle. Yes, you still have to heat it to it's melting point, but that's a lot less energy intensive than the refining process.
"the end point of automation technology" would be that essentially the entire economy is automated. Why would we have to stop making enough goods/services to support the population? Granted, the western economic systems are currently based on a profit/survival motive, but that doesn't mean that profit/survival is the only thing that that drives us. The largest changes in humanity occurred when we found ways to spend less time on base survival. This could simply be the next step..
How about a rule forbidding paid lobbyists? That sounds more likely to level the playing field. I'm sure there would still be shenanigans with corporations hiring formerly "unpaid" lobbyists, however.
Well, how many incidents were there before the TSA took over security from the airports. You do remember that airports once handled their own security, right? Are you sure that the TSA is doing a better job?
I disagree. The TSA provides a valuable service..it's just that they have gone too far.
I have no problem with post 9/11 security measures at the airport
Wait... so you have no problem with the post 9/11 TSA security measures, but you think that they've gone too far...
Do you not notice the contradiction in your own statements? Are you sure that you have no problem with the TSA? Seems like some cognitive dissonance might be happening here.
The only thing that happened in the last ten years that has made us appreciably safer when flying is adding secure locking doors to the cockpits of commercial aircraft. The rest is theater or has little real value other than to make a subset of the population (mostly the ones that travel on planes only rarely) feel warm and fuzzy.
If we want to stop bombs from getting on planes, we already have an effective solution: bomb sniffing dogs. One at each checkpoint and we're set. Knives and guns? X-ray and metal detectors works fine. There's no need for all this other crap.
Yeah, but King_TJ's point is, "So what?". Yeah, some people are psychopaths. That's life. Are you going to cower in fear because of it? Life IS dangerous. Get over it.
I'd argue that there is little point in this level of "security". If someone is determined and depraved enough to use a child as a living bomb and they really want to kill a bunch of people, there isn't going to be much you can do to stop them. Even if there was perfect security at the airport, the hypothetical psychopath could find plenty of other poorly secured large groups of people to attack. The solution isn't to add ridiculous levels of security anywhere that there are lots of people, but to accept the fact that some (very VERY small minority of) people are psychopaths and not allow that to change the way that we live. Patting down little girls is not going to make us appreciably safer. As such, there is no place for it in our society.
And I read it as being sarcastic. It is reasonably safe to work with gasoline, so long as you aren't a complete moron. But despite the sarcastic intent, fuel leaking from old gas station storage tanks is a real problem.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, the "pig powder" you're referring to is just powdered cellular matrix (basically pig tissue with the cells themselves removed). I remember reading that there was a study showing that this powdered cellular matrix aided regenerative healing if placed on a fresh wound. It wouldn't replace scar tissue with normal tissue, but would instead prevent the scar tissue from being produced in the first place.
Humans don't hibernate though. (although there are suggestions that it might be possible to trigger a hibernating state in humans/other non-hibernating mammals) It could be other factors related to hibernation that allow bears to heal regeneratively, not just a lowered body temperature.
Reading through TFA it sounds like these are industrial quality diamonds rather than the sparkly, clear, goes on a ring type. Still a big find though.
You would, but geologists wouldn't. They are used to what rocks and minerals look like under our own earthly lighting. As such it makes sense to adjust the color of the image to match earth-normal lighting conditions.
Yes, and when I was in kindergarten, I remember my teacher rounding all the kids up to watch the launch and talking about how there was a teacher on-board. I also remember our teacher suddenly turning off the TV and changing the subject to something else. It may not have been prime time, but there were an awful lot of people watching that launch.
(Mercedes, for instance, has had vehicles which can predict a panic stop and preemptively apply full-on ABS braking for well over a decade, using nothing more than some fancy software, some potentiometers, and perhaps a more-substantial-than-usual ABS pump.)
I owned a Mazda 3 that had this too, but it seemed a bit too sensitive. On many occasions in rush hour traffic, I found myself having to quickly pull my foot off of the brake because the car was suddenly providing too much braking force. (didn't want to get rear ended)
Aircraft of course fail badly (see the air france crash from brazil to paris) when the sensors start getting bad data.
The autopilot automatically disengaged when it decided that it couldn't trust the air speed sensors, but from what I've read, the autopilot still could have been re-engaged in that state. If the pilots had re-engaged the auto-pilot, then the computer would have corrected the high angle of attack that caused the plane to stall and ultimately crash.
Not mass, but perhaps inertia? However, if you are able to cancel out part of the inertia of an object, what would that do to it's temperature? The vibration of the atoms and molecules of an object is collectively measured as temperature, and reducing inertia would conceivably affect that vibration. (after all, energy must be conserved) My guess is that it would increase the frequency of the vibration. Would this make it behave as though its temperature has increased? Would melting/boiling points drop?
Perhaps the proximity to the threshold is the reason that vacuum is seething with virtual particles? If the Higgs mass were slightly less, would the virtual particles be slightly less virtual?
That experiment works because at that altitude there is still a small amount of atmosphere. I think that DJRumpy was referring to the fact that the lowest energy state of a vacuum is non-zero. If it has energy, can you really call it empty?
Not only that, if you cancelled out some inertia, wouldn't that cause the frequency of the vibrations of molecules/atoms to increase? The energy making up the temperature of an object needs to be conserved. A higher frequency vibration might cause something to act as though it's hotter than it really is. Maybe it would lower boiling points, etc. That would be very bad for living things, so inertia cancellation for spacecraft/aircraft, etc might be infeasible. It has interesting applications for industry though and might make it possible to achieve fusion at lower temperatures.
Aluminum is indeed very energy intensive to refine from ore, but it is very easy and relatively low energy to recycle. Yes, you still have to heat it to it's melting point, but that's a lot less energy intensive than the refining process.
$50 increase if it were assembled in the US. Almost all of the parts would be still be made overseas and shipped to the US.
"the end point of automation technology" would be that essentially the entire economy is automated. Why would we have to stop making enough goods/services to support the population? Granted, the western economic systems are currently based on a profit/survival motive, but that doesn't mean that profit/survival is the only thing that that drives us. The largest changes in humanity occurred when we found ways to spend less time on base survival. This could simply be the next step..
Actually, it appears to be 94 to 104 though the top and bottom values are not labeled.
Maybe they were being intentionally ironic?
How about a rule forbidding paid lobbyists? That sounds more likely to level the playing field. I'm sure there would still be shenanigans with corporations hiring formerly "unpaid" lobbyists, however.
How about linking to the original source instead of a short summary:
Well, how many incidents were there before the TSA took over security from the airports. You do remember that airports once handled their own security, right? Are you sure that the TSA is doing a better job?
I disagree. The TSA provides a valuable service..it's just that they have gone too far.
I have no problem with post 9/11 security measures at the airport
Wait... so you have no problem with the post 9/11 TSA security measures, but you think that they've gone too far...
Do you not notice the contradiction in your own statements? Are you sure that you have no problem with the TSA? Seems like some cognitive dissonance might be happening here.
The only thing that happened in the last ten years that has made us appreciably safer when flying is adding secure locking doors to the cockpits of commercial aircraft. The rest is theater or has little real value other than to make a subset of the population (mostly the ones that travel on planes only rarely) feel warm and fuzzy.
If we want to stop bombs from getting on planes, we already have an effective solution: bomb sniffing dogs. One at each checkpoint and we're set. Knives and guns? X-ray and metal detectors works fine. There's no need for all this other crap.
Yeah, but King_TJ's point is, "So what?". Yeah, some people are psychopaths. That's life. Are you going to cower in fear because of it? Life IS dangerous. Get over it.
I'd argue that there is little point in this level of "security". If someone is determined and depraved enough to use a child as a living bomb and they really want to kill a bunch of people, there isn't going to be much you can do to stop them. Even if there was perfect security at the airport, the hypothetical psychopath could find plenty of other poorly secured large groups of people to attack. The solution isn't to add ridiculous levels of security anywhere that there are lots of people, but to accept the fact that some (very VERY small minority of) people are psychopaths and not allow that to change the way that we live. Patting down little girls is not going to make us appreciably safer. As such, there is no place for it in our society.
And I read it as being sarcastic. It is reasonably safe to work with gasoline, so long as you aren't a complete moron. But despite the sarcastic intent, fuel leaking from old gas station storage tanks is a real problem.
Most of these small reactor designs are mostly underground, with only a small building on the surface.