It isn't believable because it's a plausible scenario, it's believable because we WANT to believe that it happened. Mistakes made by dudes that are smarter than us really put a bad day at the office into perspective.
... no, I'm pretty sure it's believable because "Pencils write in space without gravity while pens don't" sounds plausible.
"'Pens use gravity to get the ink onto paper' you say? I can't remember the last time I tried to write upside down, but I think the pen may not have worked, so I could buy that. Pencils probably work without gravity, that just makes sense. NASA didn't think of it but the Russians did? Well, I don't know anyone working at NASA, so okay, I'll take your word for it."
I really don't think many people accepted that because of reasons like "Ha ha, those overeducated morons at NASA! I dropped out of high school but I could have solved that one!"
How does it sound "contrived?" I mean, it's kind of an obvious answer, and it's not inconceivable that when we were racing into space, someone set aside a large sum of money to fix a "Space problem" that had already been solved. Think of how much time and money get devoted to solving and preventing "computer" crimes that are really just regular old crimes, except that someone involved used a computer. Think of how much we spent "on terrorism" on things that had nothing to do with terrorism. Wasting money is not a new government behavior, it sounds entirely plausible to me.
...Or maybe you meant that a pen would work just fine in space? Well, many of us don't think about the physics of pens, so it doesn't sound that contrived to us.
Shouldn't we have higher priorities to spend money on? Space elevator, far space travel, populate Mars (coz frankly we are getting too crowded on earth)?
This is Australia we're talking about, so "no" and "crowded?"
The Ruskies brought vodka into orbit, the Australians are doing beer. Americans? Well, I guess we made Tang. So there's that. Oh, and nukes, we probably brought weapons into space first.
It was under "idle" and had "facebook" in the title. So clearly it was slashdot's fault that you wandered in here and then weren't interested. Reminds me of the time I went to the doctor's office, signed up for a vasectomy and then those assholes gave me a vasectomy!
The Hippocratic oath in a nutshell: from "do no harm" to "rob me of my vas defrens."
Do they have towels wrapped around their heads and greet everyone with Salamalaikum?
Yes, but the towels really just hide the greasy hair and tinfoil hats. And "Salamalaikum" happens to be the password to a major cybercrime organization. Come to think of it, it has lead to many avoidable confusions... maybe we should change it...
When was the last time you heard about any major conviction in a Russian jurisdiction?
Never. Hmm... I've also never heard of any major convictions in... well, anywhere but the US. Thus I conclude that the rest of the world is the cybercrime capitol of the world.
And I don't believe for a second that 1) he was doing this for some higher cause, more like blatent teen narcissism; or that 2) disagreeing with a law morally entitles somebody to break it.
"Entitles?" As in morally or legally? If a law is immoral, I'd say you have plenty of moral justification for breaking it. Lets not pretend laws are perfect, handed down from the Gods.
Manning sold out his own country for nothing more than self-satisfaction. I'm glad to see him getting charged with aiding the enemy. I hope he gets the death penalty.
Even if we take that first part for true (maybe we assume that no one could possibly do something with good intentions that ends up hurting some idiotic sense of national pride), really?
Manning is a kid who was serving in the military. HE'S the first guy you'd like to see on the chopping block for "selling out" his own country? Not, say some elected official who has taken money from corporations to make decisions against the interests of the citizenry? Really? Wow. Okay. Wow.
Oh wait, the "nothing more than self-satisfaction" is what deserves the death penalty? If, say, the Koch brothers had paid him to do it, that would make it okay?
I don't understand why there's a want or a need for a national ID system.
Probably slightly less paperwork for law enforcement, so they like it. And some government contracts would probably be awarded for the manufacture and tracking of the ID, so there's that economic interest to hire lobbyists. Plus, homeland security's primary job is to fool the public into thinking they're safe, big intrusive programs are some of the most effective placebos in that aspect. So there's plenty of want and need for it.
Oh, did you mean legitimate reasons why this is good for the nation? Well, none, obviously.
I really don't get why people flip shit over this when you already have a local nation id in the form of a driver's license / state issued photo id and your passport
Slippery slope for one. If this passes, the issue could become "Basically everyone already has these ID cards, why not make them mandatory" then "You already all have ID cards issued, there's no reason you shouldn't have them on you at all times. To prevent terrorism." Then "We had to shut down that protest: there were people breaking the law by not having national ID cards" or "Suspect was obeying the law, and had an ID card, but we suspected it was fake and incarcerated him until we could determine it was legitimate, at which time he had missed his speech 'when did we submit to totalitarian rule."
And while each of those steps are a long shot and maybe unrealistic, but it's a pointless risk to take: we get no increased security in return. None. This won't prevent terrorism.
So is the theory wrong, is the article wrong (yes, I did RTFA), or did they find some clever workaround?
This is one of several clever workarounds. The article lacks details, I'm guessing it's because the concept is pretty complex. I only half understand the structured illumination method mentioned in that wiki article and I think that's probably a simpler concept.
We cell biologists aren't very good with math, no. I know nano is smaller than micro. So nano is helpful while scientific notation would just anger and scare me.
This is beyond the theoretical limit of optical microscopy."
So either the scientists are lying, or the theory is wrong. Which is it? Pons? Fleischmann? Anyone?
The dumbed down version (the only one I understand): light has a "size" of about 200 nanometers, and you wouldn't expect to see detail smaller than that using light. Recently though, people have found a way around that.
This actually isn't the first microscope to break that barrier. There's OMX for one.
and, if you keep it too much, the urine in your bladder may even get pushed back into your bloodstream and outright poison you. Great researches come out, from the fine institutions of our scientific establishment, sometimes....
Point to me where the researcher said something like "... and there's no upper limit to this effect, so you should probably never pee again." The assumption with any medical research is that YOU DON'T OVERDO IT. You know: common sense. You can overdose on damn near everything. Vitamins are generally good for you, but they are also toxic if you take too much of some of them. Better stay away from them. Oxygen keeps you alive. Uh oh, if you hyperventilate, you pass out. Stop breathing just to be on the safe side.
The experiment mentioned was "participants either drank five cups of water..., or took small sips of water from five separate cups. Then, after about 40 minutes -- the amount of time it takes for water to reach the bladder -- the researchers assessed participants' self-control."
That doesn't exactly specify it was a full bladder that was causing the effect, it might just be urine production that stimulates better decisions.
To make sure you generate lots of urine, I recommend you drink alcohol. I'm told by multiple sources that definitely affects self-control, though being drunk myself, I can't quite remember what that effect was. Anyway, the urine production plus the effect of alcohol undoubtedly have synergistic effects.
I'd be shocked if Obama was using these guys. Not because I think he's too moral to do that, just that would show a surprising amount of cunning for a democrat.
Wait, maybe he did in a scheme to get himself impeached. Nevermind, totally believable.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't believable because it's a plausible scenario, it's believable because we WANT to believe that it happened. Mistakes made by dudes that are smarter than us really put a bad day at the office into perspective.
... no, I'm pretty sure it's believable because "Pencils write in space without gravity while pens don't" sounds plausible.
"'Pens use gravity to get the ink onto paper' you say? I can't remember the last time I tried to write upside down, but I think the pen may not have worked, so I could buy that. Pencils probably work without gravity, that just makes sense. NASA didn't think of it but the Russians did? Well, I don't know anyone working at NASA, so okay, I'll take your word for it."
I really don't think many people accepted that because of reasons like "Ha ha, those overeducated morons at NASA! I dropped out of high school but I could have solved that one!"
I rarely use pencils, and it's even rarer that I write in zero gravity high oxygen electronic dependent sealed environments, so... no.
I meant that pencils would seem like an obvious answer to the problem of "how do you write in space," and I could easily see NASA overlooking this.
How does it sound "contrived?" I mean, it's kind of an obvious answer, and it's not inconceivable that when we were racing into space, someone set aside a large sum of money to fix a "Space problem" that had already been solved. Think of how much time and money get devoted to solving and preventing "computer" crimes that are really just regular old crimes, except that someone involved used a computer. Think of how much we spent "on terrorism" on things that had nothing to do with terrorism. Wasting money is not a new government behavior, it sounds entirely plausible to me.
...Or maybe you meant that a pen would work just fine in space? Well, many of us don't think about the physics of pens, so it doesn't sound that contrived to us.
Hypothesis: beer consumed in low gravity will cure cancer.
Experimental protocol
1. Make a beer designed for space and get cancer doing it
2. Consume beer in space, curing cancer
3.???
4. PROFIT!!!
Shouldn't we have higher priorities to spend money on? Space elevator, far space travel, populate Mars (coz frankly we are getting too crowded on earth)?
This is Australia we're talking about, so "no" and "crowded?"
The Ruskies brought vodka into orbit, the Australians are doing beer. Americans? Well, I guess we made Tang. So there's that. Oh, and nukes, we probably brought weapons into space first.
It was under "idle" and had "facebook" in the title. So clearly it was slashdot's fault that you wandered in here and then weren't interested. Reminds me of the time I went to the doctor's office, signed up for a vasectomy and then those assholes gave me a vasectomy!
The Hippocratic oath in a nutshell: from "do no harm" to "rob me of my vas defrens."
the link you give is 10 fold better this is 20 fold better
My point was that the light barrier has been broken before by microscopes using light, which it has. I didn't say OMX was better.
I find it takes me back to those shriners-funded criminal computer classes I took in juvee hall. That and my comically small car.
Do they have towels wrapped around their heads and greet everyone with Salamalaikum?
Yes, but the towels really just hide the greasy hair and tinfoil hats. And "Salamalaikum" happens to be the password to a major cybercrime organization. Come to think of it, it has lead to many avoidable confusions... maybe we should change it...
When was the last time you heard about any major conviction in a Russian jurisdiction?
Never. Hmm... I've also never heard of any major convictions in... well, anywhere but the US. Thus I conclude that the rest of the world is the cybercrime capitol of the world.
And I don't believe for a second that 1) he was doing this for some higher cause, more like blatent teen narcissism; or that 2) disagreeing with a law morally entitles somebody to break it.
"Entitles?" As in morally or legally? If a law is immoral, I'd say you have plenty of moral justification for breaking it. Lets not pretend laws are perfect, handed down from the Gods.
Manning sold out his own country for nothing more than self-satisfaction. I'm glad to see him getting charged with aiding the enemy. I hope he gets the death penalty.
Even if we take that first part for true (maybe we assume that no one could possibly do something with good intentions that ends up hurting some idiotic sense of national pride), really?
Manning is a kid who was serving in the military. HE'S the first guy you'd like to see on the chopping block for "selling out" his own country? Not, say some elected official who has taken money from corporations to make decisions against the interests of the citizenry? Really? Wow. Okay. Wow.
Oh wait, the "nothing more than self-satisfaction" is what deserves the death penalty? If, say, the Koch brothers had paid him to do it, that would make it okay?
I don't understand why there's a want or a need for a national ID system.
Probably slightly less paperwork for law enforcement, so they like it. And some government contracts would probably be awarded for the manufacture and tracking of the ID, so there's that economic interest to hire lobbyists. Plus, homeland security's primary job is to fool the public into thinking they're safe, big intrusive programs are some of the most effective placebos in that aspect. So there's plenty of want and need for it.
Oh, did you mean legitimate reasons why this is good for the nation? Well, none, obviously.
Are you implying that somehow makes it less important to pay attention to?
Interesting outlook.
"Jimmy murdered someone? So what? OLD NEWS! He murders people all the time?"
I really don't get why people flip shit over this when you already have a local nation id in the form of a driver's license / state issued photo id and your passport
Slippery slope for one. If this passes, the issue could become "Basically everyone already has these ID cards, why not make them mandatory" then "You already all have ID cards issued, there's no reason you shouldn't have them on you at all times. To prevent terrorism." Then "We had to shut down that protest: there were people breaking the law by not having national ID cards" or "Suspect was obeying the law, and had an ID card, but we suspected it was fake and incarcerated him until we could determine it was legitimate, at which time he had missed his speech 'when did we submit to totalitarian rule."
And while each of those steps are a long shot and maybe unrealistic, but it's a pointless risk to take: we get no increased security in return. None. This won't prevent terrorism.
"Timmy, here's why your nose is runny! See? A rhinovirus! Here, let's take a picture and forward it to your teacher."
One of the currently available super-resolution microscopes, the OMX, is running at 1.2 million dollars.
Anyway, for a virus, you'd really want to use EM, and I've heard of some "cheap" SEMs available for around $400.
So is the theory wrong, is the article wrong (yes, I did RTFA), or did they find some clever workaround?
This is one of several clever workarounds. The article lacks details, I'm guessing it's because the concept is pretty complex. I only half understand the structured illumination method mentioned in that wiki article and I think that's probably a simpler concept.
We cell biologists aren't very good with math, no. I know nano is smaller than micro. So nano is helpful while scientific notation would just anger and scare me.
This is beyond the theoretical limit of optical microscopy." So either the scientists are lying, or the theory is wrong. Which is it? Pons? Fleischmann? Anyone?
The dumbed down version (the only one I understand): light has a "size" of about 200 nanometers, and you wouldn't expect to see detail smaller than that using light. Recently though, people have found a way around that.
This actually isn't the first microscope to break that barrier. There's OMX for one.
I'll be damned if I ever upgrade to teletype stop prefer older ways stop
and, if you keep it too much, the urine in your bladder may even get pushed back into your bloodstream and outright poison you. Great researches come out, from the fine institutions of our scientific establishment, sometimes ....
Point to me where the researcher said something like "... and there's no upper limit to this effect, so you should probably never pee again." The assumption with any medical research is that YOU DON'T OVERDO IT. You know: common sense. You can overdose on damn near everything. Vitamins are generally good for you, but they are also toxic if you take too much of some of them. Better stay away from them. Oxygen keeps you alive. Uh oh, if you hyperventilate, you pass out. Stop breathing just to be on the safe side.
What should I do as I can't get a full bladder?
The experiment mentioned was "participants either drank five cups of water..., or took small sips of water from five separate cups. Then, after about 40 minutes -- the amount of time it takes for water to reach the bladder -- the researchers assessed participants' self-control."
That doesn't exactly specify it was a full bladder that was causing the effect, it might just be urine production that stimulates better decisions.
To make sure you generate lots of urine, I recommend you drink alcohol. I'm told by multiple sources that definitely affects self-control, though being drunk myself, I can't quite remember what that effect was. Anyway, the urine production plus the effect of alcohol undoubtedly have synergistic effects.
I'd be shocked if Obama was using these guys. Not because I think he's too moral to do that, just that would show a surprising amount of cunning for a democrat.
Wait, maybe he did in a scheme to get himself impeached. Nevermind, totally believable.