My friend from high school *did* die from going cold turkey with heroin addiction. He didn't choose to of course, its was circumstance that meant he couldn't get any more. Where are you getting your facts?
During the week at work with our very good coffee machine, i have between 4-10 espressos per day. I often work weekends so this is often fairly constant. However i often need to travel or go on holidays where its common to have no coffee at all for weeks. This year i was in Japan, they just don't do coffee. I get no headaches or withdraw.
However my Mum does. If we check medical journals we note that this in fact match's the data. Some people get addicted but not all. This also applies to alcohol hence the hereditary basis of alcoholism. Some people have a disposition to physical addiction. It should be noted that its hard to prove this outside asking people if they have symptoms which can of course be psychosomatic and addicts don't really volunteer for double blind studies much. Even if they do, you can't rule out that there is no physical addiction (or the converse for that matter).
I could go on, however the statement that Pot is not physically addictive is not held by the medical community. It is not strongly addictive like heroin or nicotine. But that is not the same thing. Also the fact that its not addictive to some does not mean all. We *know* this from medical studies, its effect is dependent on the person, and a blanket statement like it harmless is just not constructive to the debate. It may be mostly harmless for a lot of people, but that is not the same thing.
Its funny how many facts are just asserted in this thread without even so much as a wikipedia citation.
I never claimed that you said it. Just look how many post use it? and what for? There should be something equivalent to Godwin for using such ad hominem attacks rather than debate on merit.
Three point five to four billions years ago just does not have the right ring to it. Also i was referring to when the earth is completely covered by these grey goo things. Which is suspected to be a bit later than first life.
Only you can't measure it with any accuracy at all and its a such a big number i would never bother writing it down. The proper way is seconds since the last epoch. Currently that is j2000.0 . Star dates are not consistent in star trek so we can't use those. Once we have a devastating war against the machines we can use that? Assuming we win.
This is not correct. Getting a gun type configuration to prompt criticality where a percentage of of the U235/Pu239 would be consumed is impossible without explosives. Even a tiny amount of fission (much less than.1%) will heat up the material to metal gas temperatures and will disassemble very fast and hence it is a fissile. Even with explosives gun type configurations are very inefficient, typically less than 30% is consumed and thus they need a lot of material compared to implosion devices.
Getting implosion devices to work was hard in 1945. Your computer has much more critical timing as does USB 2.0 etc. Explosive lenses are something quite easy to do with modern explosives. Hell even slapper detonators are used in civilian applications now days. The hard part is bomb grade U235 or Pu239.
Even with passengers its not as bad as its always made out. First of all in the Hindenburg half the people survived. How many airline crashes any survivors. Next is hydrogen high flammability, this is fact and no amount of thermite paint is going to change that. But Jet fuel is also very flammable and a 747 with a full load of fuel has almost 100tons of it, some right under your feet. Add the fact that you can't go slower than 100s of miles and hour for landings, and planes are not any better.
Airships with hydrogen could easily be made as safe as modern airliners. However airlines are just that much faster, fly higher and are much less sensitive to weather and wind in particular. I don't see airships coming back any time soon. Even without the perceived dangers from hydrogen or a unlimited supply of helium.
As for a reduced CO2 footprint. Give people the one day trip option at the same price as the 2 hour option will not be enough (TSA are used in both). People care on a forum, not with real time or money. For cargo I can't see this beating rail or ships either with cost or CO2 footprint.
Your adviser is just not telling you. Hell in most departments it is not llke you see the bill personally or that it even comes out of grant money. Many departments have a separate account for something like that are glad to pay it since publications look good. My departments are typically very small however so i do see all this. Case in point even 2000USD is not much compared to running a lab. But the fees are there, and you should see what the likes of IEEE or Science charge the University library for a subscription.
All journals use language like that or have statements that you will not be bard from publication if you cannot pay, blar blar blar. Which means *not* being from a from a first world country or university, you are not going to convince them that you don't need to pay cus you don't want to or cannot afford it if you are from MIT or something. Of course for most people if you have so many accepted papers that you are struggling to pay then things are pretty good.
Its not like i haven't actually published papers in these journals. I am not just making it up. It is not just open access and your lack of experience does not change anything. Page charges are the rule. Period.
They all do. The "prestigious" ones especially and yes IEEE does too. 50USD per page is about as low as it gets. I have paid over 2000USD in some cases for my papers. Every single one has page charges, i know of no exceptions. I think your adviser is not telling you everything.
Velcro and Teflon are not a product of the moon missions or even NASA. In fact there was practically nothing, since all that R&D was being done independent of NASA for other reasons (ie the transistor etc). The only state of the art that was improved was pork spending, further honed with the space shuttle and perfected with the shuttle replacement projects and the ISS.
If your serious about space, you should not be serious about NASA.
Having worked on GPS type things in the past both systems are very similar and the electronics is not hard to do these days, and because they are so similar the development costs won't be high. Hell someone on Makeit did their own GPS receiver *without* a gps chip. Very cool.
The Galileo *civilian* band originally overlapped with the US *military* band. In other words, you could buy an over the counter device that could guide a weapon to a specific grid reference in an area the US was fighting a war. Remember the rocket forces Hezbollah were able to deploy against Israel? Imagine that with GPS targetting that you can't jam without blinding your own forces.
No you can't. Both GPS and Galileo civilian devices are speed, acceleration and altitude limited. No rocket would work with it. Even our armature rockets had too high acceleration and too high speeds to allow for GPS tracking through most of its flight trajectory.
However they did not ask nicely with the overlapping bands. The US was aggressive about it. Very aggressive. I didn't track the debate to its conclusion. I was still under the impression that the bands still overlap.
I would say the in Europe people have a healthy paranoia about the government. But we are far less adverse to taxation if it makes sense. If we really are serious about the externalities caused by CO2 then it needs to have regulated cost. Just as one example.
I really hope so. I think it will take longer however, mostly for liability and perceived safety reasons. People are just happier if it was another person that stuffed it up and killed them or their loved ones. They get all stuck on punishment and revenge and blame when its a machine.
The US does not really hold this position, at least not for a while. Its holding on, but only just and not from a position of power. And most don't think for much longer. Not as the dominate player. May still be the bully in the school yard though. But that is not the same thing.
The US strongly objected to the fact that the frequencies overlap. So you can't jam Galileo without also jamming GPS. The converse is not true. It is rumored that they overlap precisely for this reason. Also a minimum accuracy level (sufficient for civilian activities) of Galileo is suppose to be impossible to turn off, even by the EU.
I very much doubt that the EU put a off switch in for the US. We just don't get along that well. See the leaked diplomatic cables for proof. And how can the US not allow Galileo going forward? By shooting them down?
Slashdot Mirror
My friend from high school *did* die from going cold turkey with heroin addiction. He didn't choose to of course, its was circumstance that meant he couldn't get any more. Where are you getting your facts?
During the week at work with our very good coffee machine, i have between 4-10 espressos per day. I often work weekends so this is often fairly constant. However i often need to travel or go on holidays where its common to have no coffee at all for weeks. This year i was in Japan, they just don't do coffee. I get no headaches or withdraw.
However my Mum does. If we check medical journals we note that this in fact match's the data. Some people get addicted but not all. This also applies to alcohol hence the hereditary basis of alcoholism. Some people have a disposition to physical addiction. It should be noted that its hard to prove this outside asking people if they have symptoms which can of course be psychosomatic and addicts don't really volunteer for double blind studies much. Even if they do, you can't rule out that there is no physical addiction (or the converse for that matter).
I could go on, however the statement that Pot is not physically addictive is not held by the medical community. It is not strongly addictive like heroin or nicotine. But that is not the same thing. Also the fact that its not addictive to some does not mean all. We *know* this from medical studies, its effect is dependent on the person, and a blanket statement like it harmless is just not constructive to the debate. It may be mostly harmless for a lot of people, but that is not the same thing.
Its funny how many facts are just asserted in this thread without even so much as a wikipedia citation.
Don't see why i should buck that trend.
I never claimed that you said it. Just look how many post use it? and what for? There should be something equivalent to Godwin for using such ad hominem attacks rather than debate on merit.
Its no different than the number of posts with "deniers" in it. The fact your surprised indicated a lack of understanding of human nature.
Next you'll be telling me the AGW debate is not political.
Three point five to four billions years ago just does not have the right ring to it. Also i was referring to when the earth is completely covered by these grey goo things. Which is suspected to be a bit later than first life.
:P
Only you can't measure it with any accuracy at all and its a such a big number i would never bother writing it down. The proper way is seconds since the last epoch. Currently that is j2000.0 . Star dates are not consistent in star trek so we can't use those. Once we have a devastating war against the machines we can use that? Assuming we win.
There has been a case with one warhead in a rocket fire (H2N2CH3+N2O4 IIRC) and it just burnt and did not detonate.
This is not correct. Getting a gun type configuration to prompt criticality where a percentage of of the U235/Pu239 would be consumed is impossible without explosives. Even a tiny amount of fission (much less than .1%) will heat up the material to metal gas temperatures and will disassemble very fast and hence it is a fissile. Even with explosives gun type configurations are very inefficient, typically less than 30% is consumed and thus they need a lot of material compared to implosion devices.
Getting implosion devices to work was hard in 1945. Your computer has much more critical timing as does USB 2.0 etc. Explosive lenses are something quite easy to do with modern explosives. Hell even slapper detonators are used in civilian applications now days. The hard part is bomb grade U235 or Pu239.
Its closer to 1 proton per cubic meter (one per 27cubic feet approx ). Close to planets its higher of course, but still pretty low.
Even with passengers its not as bad as its always made out. First of all in the Hindenburg half the people survived. How many airline crashes any survivors. Next is hydrogen high flammability, this is fact and no amount of thermite paint is going to change that. But Jet fuel is also very flammable and a 747 with a full load of fuel has almost 100tons of it, some right under your feet. Add the fact that you can't go slower than 100s of miles and hour for landings, and planes are not any better.
Airships with hydrogen could easily be made as safe as modern airliners. However airlines are just that much faster, fly higher and are much less sensitive to weather and wind in particular. I don't see airships coming back any time soon. Even without the perceived dangers from hydrogen or a unlimited supply of helium.
As for a reduced CO2 footprint. Give people the one day trip option at the same price as the 2 hour option will not be enough (TSA are used in both). People care on a forum, not with real time or money. For cargo I can't see this beating rail or ships either with cost or CO2 footprint.
Your adviser is just not telling you. Hell in most departments it is not llke you see the bill personally or that it even comes out of grant money. Many departments have a separate account for something like that are glad to pay it since publications look good. My departments are typically very small however so i do see all this. Case in point even 2000USD is not much compared to running a lab. But the fees are there, and you should see what the likes of IEEE or Science charge the University library for a subscription.
All journals use language like that or have statements that you will not be bard from publication if you cannot pay, blar blar blar. Which means *not* being from a from a first world country or university, you are not going to convince them that you don't need to pay cus you don't want to or cannot afford it if you are from MIT or something. Of course for most people if you have so many accepted papers that you are struggling to pay then things are pretty good.
Its not like i haven't actually published papers in these journals. I am not just making it up. It is not just open access and your lack of experience does not change anything. Page charges are the rule. Period.
They all do. The "prestigious" ones especially and yes IEEE does too. 50USD per page is about as low as it gets. I have paid over 2000USD in some cases for my papers. Every single one has page charges, i know of no exceptions. I think your adviser is not telling you everything.
So what? You can't patent or copyright ideas.
It has happened. In Russia more than once. It was even a story here on /.
Fear of flying and no car, or just too much TSA. I know people in this category in the US. They don't travel much.
Velcro and Teflon are not a product of the moon missions or even NASA. In fact there was practically nothing, since all that R&D was being done independent of NASA for other reasons (ie the transistor etc). The only state of the art that was improved was pork spending, further honed with the space shuttle and perfected with the shuttle replacement projects and the ISS.
If your serious about space, you should not be serious about NASA.
Which doesn't change the fact that its probably a better driver than you and you will be safer. *Feeling* safe is irrelevant.
He is in the US. So probably not ;)
Having worked on GPS type things in the past both systems are very similar and the electronics is not hard to do these days, and because they are so similar the development costs won't be high. Hell someone on Makeit did their own GPS receiver *without* a gps chip. Very cool.
The Galileo *civilian* band originally overlapped with the US *military* band. In other words, you could buy an over the counter device that could guide a weapon to a specific grid reference in an area the US was fighting a war. Remember the rocket forces Hezbollah were able to deploy against Israel? Imagine that with GPS targetting that you can't jam without blinding your own forces.
No you can't. Both GPS and Galileo civilian devices are speed, acceleration and altitude limited. No rocket would work with it. Even our armature rockets had too high acceleration and too high speeds to allow for GPS tracking through most of its flight trajectory.
However they did not ask nicely with the overlapping bands. The US was aggressive about it. Very aggressive. I didn't track the debate to its conclusion. I was still under the impression that the bands still overlap.
I would say the in Europe people have a healthy paranoia about the government. But we are far less adverse to taxation if it makes sense. If we really are serious about the externalities caused by CO2 then it needs to have regulated cost. Just as one example.
internet stopped working because of no GPS? Citation required. My BS meter is off the scale.
I really hope so. I think it will take longer however, mostly for liability and perceived safety reasons. People are just happier if it was another person that stuffed it up and killed them or their loved ones. They get all stuck on punishment and revenge and blame when its a machine.
The US does not really hold this position, at least not for a while. Its holding on, but only just and not from a position of power. And most don't think for much longer. Not as the dominate player. May still be the bully in the school yard though. But that is not the same thing.
The US strongly objected to the fact that the frequencies overlap. So you can't jam Galileo without also jamming GPS. The converse is not true. It is rumored that they overlap precisely for this reason. Also a minimum accuracy level (sufficient for civilian activities) of Galileo is suppose to be impossible to turn off, even by the EU.
I very much doubt that the EU put a off switch in for the US. We just don't get along that well. See the leaked diplomatic cables for proof. And how can the US not allow Galileo going forward? By shooting them down?