It's not like you can build such things in stealth.
But the f-22 DOES use stealth!...
And all the air force/.ers are rolling in the aisles.
Re:The Lightning is no replacement for the Raptor
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The Lightning is seriously cool but it simple cannot replace the Raptor - and it was never meant to, except, it appears, in the minds of Democrats.
This democrat wants to know if there's any reason to care about replacing them. You mentioned it's half the size and has a third of the weapons payload. Is it just the phallic symbolism that you are upset about?
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 5, Informative
if 187 Raptors aren't sufficient to achieve that in some future conflict
Which conflict would that be? It's not the ones we are in now, which we're going into astronomical debt over. I don't know who has an air force that would rival us, but I'd guess China and North Korea. Either way, we can't afford it even with these cuts. In fact, I think/hope we can't afford to fight ANY more unilateral wars against ANYONE.
Any war/conflict in which 187 raptors is insufficient is a war our economy is also insufficient for.
Or bacteria, which will give you orders of magnitude more DNA overnight than a week of fly collecting, and which are much easier to purify DNA from.
This article also talks about using salmon DNA for lights. They had a good source:
Steckl and colleagues used DNA from Japan. "Salmon fishing is a very large industry in Hokkaido, Japan, some 200 000 tons per year," explained Steckl. "While the meat and eggs are edible, the male roe is normally a waste product but it is very rich in DNA."
That doesn't seem to be the same lab, and that article predates the technology review one. Maybe the Sotzing lab (featured in the technology review article) read the publications by Steckl lab (optics.org article) who used salmon DNA and decided to just use salmon DNA as they did to hurry up and publish rather than spend time seeing if salmon DNA was the only one which would do it.
Of course, it could also have been that the Steckl lab got wind of the Sotzing lab's use of salmon DNA and just beat them to the punch. And these aren't the actual publications from either lab, so it really could be anything, they could have even collaborated. Either way, it seems like they just haven't tested other DNA, the optics.org article quotes Steckl as saying they might try other DNA.
I wonder if this is actually cheaper, longer lasting or more efficent in some way, or just a neat bit of science with no future in terms of practical application.
I wonder if the article mentions anything like that...
The light emitters should also be longer-lasting because DNA is a very strong polymer, Sotzing says. "It's well beyond other polymers [in strength]," he notes, adding that it lasts 50 times longer than acrylic.
...
"It's really very cool [work], and I think that it has practical promise," says Aaron Clapp, a professor of chemical and biological engineering at Iowa State University. "[But] it seems like an overly dramatic way of doing it."
Drat! Nothing!
I guess it doesn't specifically say "This is directly applicable to the market" or "This is really more of a practical demonstration of a concept that we'll iron out to make something better" or "This is clearly better than the options that are out there now."
Keep in mind also that this is technology review, they seem to emphasize the "Hey, cool little tidbit" rather than a detailed explanation as to market advantages, and are also light (heh heh) on the technical details wheras publications from the acutal researchers would be much more illuminating (too easy).
Out of curiosity, are there other products that burst into flames spontaneously at rates lower than 1 in every 11 million? I'm just thinking that if I bought 11 million of anything - including fire extinguishers - I wouldn't be terribly surprised if one went *FOOM!* one day.
We don't know: apple has suppressed that information.
Anyway, this study fails to take into account the placebo effect. The real test would be to give 175 million people bars of soap and tell them its an ipod. If 15 of those people report that their soap-pods burst into flames, we know it's just that 1 out of 11 million people have pyrokinesis.
You said fisher price came up with a way of solving it fairly rapidly. Would FP's response have been different if the product carried the inherent risk and they couldn't fix it, or if the product were their bread and butter?
Maybe apple found that there was no way to ensure that no ipod ever would do this. Telling everyone who buys an ipod that it could explode at random seems like the type of thing that might make people buy a Zune instead. Then again, they could just stuff it in the literature somewhere and trust it would be ignored, maybe right under whatever section talks about not using their products to start a nuclear war.
Not that it would be any more ethical than not telling people at all.
The test accuracy is measured compared to the population tested. In fact, a test that consistently says "no cancer" in all cases is 99% accurate when run on the general population.
Wow, thanks! I was going to have this mole checked out at the doctor, you really just saved me a lot of time! I mean, I didn't understand your magic numbers, but if it means I don't have cancer, I'm for it!
... I see. So you derailed my joke to make fun of me not thinking about trivial acronyms. And then I still didn't get it, so I dug the hole even deeper. Well done sir/madam, what your post lacked in importance I made up for by tripping over it.
I have put together a database of upskirt photos collected from the internet. For a small fee and a reference upskirt picture you can peruse my collection and find out if you were a victim.
This is also good for those of us who have forgotten our pin number and social security numbers and are too lazy to sort it all out at the bank. Not that we have any money left in said bank accounts...
I wanna be able to drop it off a building and have it survive - after it's been run over by a tank. Otherwise, there's no point in using it on a regular basis as additional storage for something you're carrying around all the time.
Do you have 256GB worth of data as to how to avoid being run over a tank or something?
So we're all going to jump on Prometheus Labs and talk about the scenario in which the Mayo Clinic informs a patient they may have disease X and that they have the ability to test for it, they just can't unless the patient pays $200 to Prometheus Labs or some such surcharge.
Yup. They knew what they were getting into. If you want to make something and then charge highway robbery for it and use patent law as a bat against your competition, you should know that medical research is not the easiest place to do that. I AM NOT saying it's right or wrong, just that it is how it is, health is a different research game in many ways, ethics and PR are just two.
I have to admit that I'd rather have the ability to test myself for a disease for $X than to not be able to test for it no matter what the cost.
That's not the question. From TFA
The Mayo Clinic developed its own thiopurine-related test that measured the same metabolites but relies on different âoewarningâ levels to determine when a change in drug dosage in needed. In June 2004, Mayo announced it would begin using its own test and would also offer that test for sale to others. Prometheus responded by suing Mayo for patent infringement on June 15, 2004.
Prometheus hasn't actually come up with anything but a way to test something natural (at least that's how it sounds to me, a non-doctor.) The innovative part is that they're saying they're the only ones who have a right to look at that natural thing, and you can pay them whatever they want to charge as a monopoly on your own metabolites.
In other words, it's not a question of being able to be tested by paying prometheus or not being tested, it's a question of granting prometheus a monopoly when they've done nothing to deserve it (and thereby paying monopoly prices for the test) versus allowing competition where it should exist (and paying competitive prices.)
I'd definitely be willing to trust the paltry sum of $50 with a game maker as good as Valve. If we were talking over a hundred or a company like sega (sigh, these days anyway) then no.
What makes you doubt Valve, Mr Freeman? Granted, if they're asking for money for HL3, I know I'll probably be sending my as-of-yet unborn kids off to college before seeing the actual game, but $50 is something I'd be willing to donate anyway.
... the real investors won't fund something, and they're expecting to sucker gamers into doing it?
Haha. Good luck.
I doubt that valve has a hard time finding investors for it's games these days. Left 4 dead, team fortress, half life, portal, and the orange box package... Valve really seems to be at the top at least for the moment.
Having said that, I'd be hesitant to sink a lot of money into half life 3 unless there were some assurances it wouldn't be ten years before release. I don't know why HL2 took so long, maybe there was a reason for that which I would know if I were investing in them, but that's the only thing I could see holding valve up.
People who enjoy getting something for free don't pay for getting the next installment. Not in big enough numbers for a book - see the problem with financing a TV show this way?
On the other hand, my heroin dealer does quite well with this model.
Yup, to intentionally lose all your money in bad investments is spiteful enough, then you realize this was 14 years ago, BEFORE the current economic downturn or the dotcom crash. That must have taken effort!
Of course, his ex-wife is the judge who sent him to jail for it, so there's a lot of hate on both sides.
You must have also said "meh whatever" when you learned about natural selection. It doesn't work like that, read up on punctuated equalibrium. Species are generally where natural selection happens, not individual organisms. In this case, bad driving habits are something you often grow out of, has nothing to do with inherited traits. The only way natural selection would really be likely to work is if we as a species are too dumb to handle this, and somehow cellphone-talking drivers drive us to extinction.
The problem is that now people all the time are just using their phone as before, but spending three times the effort hiding their phone so the cop on the side of the road doesn't pull them over.
I've noticed drivers, and have been guilty of this myself once or twice, using the "speakerphone" option instead of using it as normal, which would be great if the speakerphone option worked as well as you would hope it would. It doesn't on my "razr," and apparently other drivers' phones. What it actually seems to do on our phones is just slightly raise the volume of the speaker. The result is people holding closed cellphones a few inches in front of our faces rather than on our ear. As someone else pointed out, handsfree sets don't make talking on the phone safer statistically, and the speakerphone option as people use them is basically no different from holding the phone to the ear.
I'm wondering if legally it's any different, it really shouldn't be.
Slashdot Mirror
If you've paid attention to the cancer warnings in the press, they don't tell you to go see a doctor for every mole.
I actually was thinking about that, but in the end, I sacrificed medical accuracy for humor.
It's not like you can build such things in stealth.
But the f-22 DOES use stealth! ...
And all the air force /.ers are rolling in the aisles.
The Lightning is seriously cool but it simple cannot replace the Raptor - and it was never meant to, except, it appears, in the minds of Democrats.
This democrat wants to know if there's any reason to care about replacing them. You mentioned it's half the size and has a third of the weapons payload. Is it just the phallic symbolism that you are upset about?
if 187 Raptors aren't sufficient to achieve that in some future conflict
Which conflict would that be? It's not the ones we are in now, which we're going into astronomical debt over. I don't know who has an air force that would rival us, but I'd guess China and North Korea. Either way, we can't afford it even with these cuts. In fact, I think/hope we can't afford to fight ANY more unilateral wars against ANYONE.
Any war/conflict in which 187 raptors is insufficient is a war our economy is also insufficient for.
Or bacteria, which will give you orders of magnitude more DNA overnight than a week of fly collecting, and which are much easier to purify DNA from.
This article also talks about using salmon DNA for lights. They had a good source:
Steckl and colleagues used DNA from Japan. "Salmon fishing is a very large industry in Hokkaido, Japan, some 200 000 tons per year," explained Steckl. "While the meat and eggs are edible, the male roe is normally a waste product but it is very rich in DNA."
That doesn't seem to be the same lab, and that article predates the technology review one. Maybe the Sotzing lab (featured in the technology review article) read the publications by Steckl lab (optics.org article) who used salmon DNA and decided to just use salmon DNA as they did to hurry up and publish rather than spend time seeing if salmon DNA was the only one which would do it.
Of course, it could also have been that the Steckl lab got wind of the Sotzing lab's use of salmon DNA and just beat them to the punch. And these aren't the actual publications from either lab, so it really could be anything, they could have even collaborated. Either way, it seems like they just haven't tested other DNA, the optics.org article quotes Steckl as saying they might try other DNA.
I wonder if this is actually cheaper, longer lasting or more efficent in some way, or just a neat bit of science with no future in terms of practical application.
I wonder if the article mentions anything like that...
Drat! Nothing!
I guess it doesn't specifically say "This is directly applicable to the market" or "This is really more of a practical demonstration of a concept that we'll iron out to make something better" or "This is clearly better than the options that are out there now."
Keep in mind also that this is technology review, they seem to emphasize the "Hey, cool little tidbit" rather than a detailed explanation as to market advantages, and are also light (heh heh) on the technical details wheras publications from the acutal researchers would be much more illuminating (too easy).
Out of curiosity, are there other products that burst into flames spontaneously at rates lower than 1 in every 11 million? I'm just thinking that if I bought 11 million of anything - including fire extinguishers - I wouldn't be terribly surprised if one went *FOOM!* one day.
We don't know: apple has suppressed that information.
Anyway, this study fails to take into account the placebo effect. The real test would be to give 175 million people bars of soap and tell them its an ipod. If 15 of those people report that their soap-pods burst into flames, we know it's just that 1 out of 11 million people have pyrokinesis.
You said fisher price came up with a way of solving it fairly rapidly. Would FP's response have been different if the product carried the inherent risk and they couldn't fix it, or if the product were their bread and butter?
Maybe apple found that there was no way to ensure that no ipod ever would do this. Telling everyone who buys an ipod that it could explode at random seems like the type of thing that might make people buy a Zune instead. Then again, they could just stuff it in the literature somewhere and trust it would be ignored, maybe right under whatever section talks about not using their products to start a nuclear war.
Not that it would be any more ethical than not telling people at all.
Hmm, teach them statistics?
Easier yet, just say something like "Eighty percent of the time it works EVERY time." And then sex your audience up.
The test accuracy is measured compared to the population tested. In fact, a test that consistently says "no cancer" in all cases is 99% accurate when run on the general population.
Wow, thanks! I was going to have this mole checked out at the doctor, you really just saved me a lot of time! I mean, I didn't understand your magic numbers, but if it means I don't have cancer, I'm for it!
Wait wait wait, two things
1. You're saying Members Only jackets are out of style and have been so since the 80s?
2. Who are you calling a jackass?
Now you're just adding insult to injury!
... I see. So you derailed my joke to make fun of me not thinking about trivial acronyms. And then I still didn't get it, so I dug the hole even deeper. Well done sir/madam, what your post lacked in importance I made up for by tripping over it.
It's the first part of my social security number
I have put together a database of upskirt photos collected from the internet. For a small fee and a reference upskirt picture you can peruse my collection and find out if you were a victim.
fixed that for you
This is also good for those of us who have forgotten our pin number and social security numbers and are too lazy to sort it all out at the bank. Not that we have any money left in said bank accounts...
I wanna be able to drop it off a building and have it survive - after it's been run over by a tank. Otherwise, there's no point in using it on a regular basis as additional storage for something you're carrying around all the time.
Do you have 256GB worth of data as to how to avoid being run over a tank or something?
So we're all going to jump on Prometheus Labs and talk about the scenario in which the Mayo Clinic informs a patient they may have disease X and that they have the ability to test for it, they just can't unless the patient pays $200 to Prometheus Labs or some such surcharge.
Yup. They knew what they were getting into. If you want to make something and then charge highway robbery for it and use patent law as a bat against your competition, you should know that medical research is not the easiest place to do that. I AM NOT saying it's right or wrong, just that it is how it is, health is a different research game in many ways, ethics and PR are just two.
I have to admit that I'd rather have the ability to test myself for a disease for $X than to not be able to test for it no matter what the cost.
That's not the question. From TFA
The Mayo Clinic developed its own thiopurine-related test that measured the same metabolites but relies on different âoewarningâ levels to determine when a change in drug dosage in needed. In June 2004, Mayo announced it would begin using its own test and would also offer that test for sale to others. Prometheus responded by suing Mayo for patent infringement on June 15, 2004.
Prometheus hasn't actually come up with anything but a way to test something natural (at least that's how it sounds to me, a non-doctor.) The innovative part is that they're saying they're the only ones who have a right to look at that natural thing, and you can pay them whatever they want to charge as a monopoly on your own metabolites.
In other words, it's not a question of being able to be tested by paying prometheus or not being tested, it's a question of granting prometheus a monopoly when they've done nothing to deserve it (and thereby paying monopoly prices for the test) versus allowing competition where it should exist (and paying competitive prices.)
I'd definitely be willing to trust the paltry sum of $50 with a game maker as good as Valve. If we were talking over a hundred or a company like sega (sigh, these days anyway) then no.
What makes you doubt Valve, Mr Freeman? Granted, if they're asking for money for HL3, I know I'll probably be sending my as-of-yet unborn kids off to college before seeing the actual game, but $50 is something I'd be willing to donate anyway.
... the real investors won't fund something, and they're expecting to sucker gamers into doing it?
Haha. Good luck.
I doubt that valve has a hard time finding investors for it's games these days. Left 4 dead, team fortress, half life, portal, and the orange box package... Valve really seems to be at the top at least for the moment.
Having said that, I'd be hesitant to sink a lot of money into half life 3 unless there were some assurances it wouldn't be ten years before release. I don't know why HL2 took so long, maybe there was a reason for that which I would know if I were investing in them, but that's the only thing I could see holding valve up.
People who enjoy getting something for free don't pay for getting the next installment. Not in big enough numbers for a book - see the problem with financing a TV show this way?
On the other hand, my heroin dealer does quite well with this model.
Yup, to intentionally lose all your money in bad investments is spiteful enough, then you realize this was 14 years ago, BEFORE the current economic downturn or the dotcom crash. That must have taken effort!
Of course, his ex-wife is the judge who sent him to jail for it, so there's a lot of hate on both sides.
We didn't go to the moon? Alright smart guy, how do you think google got the street view team driving around the moon then?!?
You must have also said "meh whatever" when you learned about natural selection. It doesn't work like that, read up on punctuated equalibrium. Species are generally where natural selection happens, not individual organisms. In this case, bad driving habits are something you often grow out of, has nothing to do with inherited traits. The only way natural selection would really be likely to work is if we as a species are too dumb to handle this, and somehow cellphone-talking drivers drive us to extinction.
The problem is that now people all the time are just using their phone as before, but spending three times the effort hiding their phone so the cop on the side of the road doesn't pull them over.
I've noticed drivers, and have been guilty of this myself once or twice, using the "speakerphone" option instead of using it as normal, which would be great if the speakerphone option worked as well as you would hope it would. It doesn't on my "razr," and apparently other drivers' phones. What it actually seems to do on our phones is just slightly raise the volume of the speaker. The result is people holding closed cellphones a few inches in front of our faces rather than on our ear. As someone else pointed out, handsfree sets don't make talking on the phone safer statistically, and the speakerphone option as people use them is basically no different from holding the phone to the ear.
I'm wondering if legally it's any different, it really shouldn't be.