Apparently the official, Fang Binxing, and the police chastised the university administration for not preventing the 'attack' despite it being announced beforehand on Twitter.
The administrator's defense: The university could not access twitter from behind the firewall!
Fleming's team shot muons produced at the TRIUMF accelerator in Vancouver into a cloud of helium, molecular hydrogen and ammonia. The helium atoms captured the muons, then pulled hydrogen atoms away from the molecular hydrogen and bonded with them.
This was all done at TRIUMF, the world's largest cyclotron and by far the best particle accelerator in Canada. Plus, Donald Truhlar (a giant in the field) supported the experimental rate constants with quantum mechanical predictions - very neat stuff indeed!
Why propose that tears caused by a fight might have significant chemical differences from tears caused by a sad movie instead of considering a hugely different state of mind for the male?
Occam's razor: maybe men who are having a tiff with a lover and see a tear will react differently than men sitting in an experimenter's room, smelling unlabeled vials.
So, maybe I get the cheapo internet connection, but when I download content I pay for from places like Amazon, iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, etc, I get faster download and no cap on the traffic, because the content providers setup a deal with the ISP.
Something like this being implemented is exactly how the internet could cease to be free in a very short time. Though your proposal sounds reasonable, It's not a far stretch to see such a tiered service offering increasingly slow service (relative to technological progress) to at all but the highest tiers, but then allowing extremely fast access to their corporate partners. Maybe the price gap between those services will also grow until eventually only a few will be willing to pay for the 'premium service' and everyone else will accept the non-neutral net as is. If it stopped there, then at least the only bias in the system would be towards big entertainment providers, but it's not hard to imagine the big news providers getting on board eventually too. Heck, there's already been a lot of pressure on the BBC to pay ISPs for the bandwidth its streaming content consumes
That leaves us with an internet biased towards non-independent media as well - exactly like modern day radio, newspapers, and television - but who's to say it would stop there? Maybe one day you find that the Financial Times loads faster than The Nation, or vice versa, etc etc.
This is exactly the sort of slow evolution that will take the internet from us, rather than an overnight transformation. It won't be much different that what happened to all other free forms of communication. And hopefully, it's exactly what the FCC trying to avoid by deliberating carefully on how to structure net neutrality regulation. If you leave any sort of gaps, even if they sound reasonable at the time, you can be damn sure they will grow until the net as we know it is unrecognizable.
Right, but there's a distinction between destroying the virus itself, and destroying infected cells. The old dogma was, from the TFA:
"In any immunology textbook you will read that once a virus makes it into a cell, that is game over because the cell is now infected. At that point there is nothing the immune response can do other than kill that cell," said Leo James, who led the research team.
But they showed a mechanism by which the body's cells can destroy the virus before the cell becomes controlled by the virus but after the virus has entered the cell. This is quite unprecedented as it allows that cell to recover, and therefore reduces the need for the immune system to have to launch attacks on our own cells, as occurs in a normal immune response and becomes uncontrolled in a cytokine storm.
If Google had not used any loopholes and paid, say $3B more in taxes, then $3B would be passed on to its customers in the form of increased costs, so it ends up being a tax on the customer.
That is extraordinarily naive. You're saying that Google's profit is fixed and its prices are totally flexible, and that changing those prices wont' affect the quantity of business that it does. No way.
In reality, Google would probably realize that increasing ads (effectively charging consumers more) would drive customers to a competitor, say Bing, and so they would be forced to just accept a lower profit margin. Not such an outlandish idea given how much profit they would still make.
But your assumption that all tax avoidance by big corporations are passed on to the consumer in savings is nothing short of absurd, tea-baggish nonsense.
You didn't know that our Minister of Science is a creationist chiropractor?
Or that the government recently claimed that statistics showing a decrease in crime over the last years are not to be trusted?
Or even the recent slashdot story of the government meddling with reports from government labs on certainly "politically charged" scientific topics? Etc etc.
If that's the case, I don't see how you can make any claim about this being newsworthy or not from under the rock you are inhabiting. And frankly, even if every Canadian was properly informed and realized this government has set the bar for anti-science policy, why would the new development of some group finally standing up to said government on behalf of scientists not be newsworthy?
I can only assume that you're American because how else could you be so capable of paranoia and hyperbole?
Trash pick-up is a municipal service - they have every right to stipulate that you should follow certain conditions in order to use their service. If you don't want to use their service, I'm sure that they won't mind. But by agreeing to use it, you accept their terms, and if you violate them then you pay a penalty. Seems more like a business than a government in this way.
But, despite partaking in countless similar arrangements with government and business alike, you extrapolate this one contract to some sort of dystopian future with "Re-education Camps" and the like... really, come on. Take off the tin-foil hat and get some sun!
I really doubt that these shops are actually getting customers actively coming to them and saying how much they prefer lack of wireless. It is an invisible service... if you do not actively use it then you have no idea if it is there or not.
At my favourite local coffee shop in Canada's Seattle, Vancouver, they do not have wireless. But they do have a posted manifesto explaining why they've made the conscious choice to remain internet-free; to improve the environment and mimic the social-hub that coffee shops originally were, back in the day.
After reading that - which makes a lot of sense if you've seen some of the other "jacked-in" coffee shops around here - I offered my compliments to the nearest employee. It does happen! And, by the way, this coffee shop is thriving - it seems I'm not alone in liking their vibe!
This group has published a good deal of work in free-to-access journals, like this article which was published in 2005 and is on the exact subject of this Nature work with just a little less information on the mechanism of action. They just sought a little more attention (not to mention funding) for their impressive work.
I'm no fan of pay walls, but the fact that I didn't hear about the work published PNAS for five years, but did hear about the similar work published in Nature within a week of its publishing justifies their choice of journal to me.
tl;dnr: An older version of this paper is available without paying here.
That won't really accomplish much. Even the quickest search reveals that the cost of medical malpractice is less than 2% - a rounding error compared to total costs..
You mention the costs of malpractice suits but you ignore the much larger effects the current tort system has on doctors, as the GP mentioned.
When doctors fear lawsuits around every corner, they practice medicine differently - they ignore their instincts and instead try and cover their asses. This means using far more diagnostic tests, prescribing more antibiotics, admitting patients more often and for longer, etc etc. They're even less likely to work in hospitals and situations where these aren't options, because they can easily end up on the hook for an institution's lack of tools, which compounds the problems of low-budget hospitals.
It's not hard to see why this is a big problem for the system as a whole - expenses go up and the well-being of patients goes down
This hardly needs saying, but that's more or less like arguing that we don't need to worry about burning through our fossil fuel supplies because we can synthesize those fuels again from waste products, or other resources. After all, most of the products of combustion won't be leaving our atmosphere anytime soon.
This thinking is only valid if we have a lot of available energy, and in this case, technology for more efficient recycling. Yes, it's easier to recycle small solids that are largely sitting among other solids than it is to purify condensed matter and generate specific hydrocarbons, but this in no way suggests that we shouldn't be thinking about this now. It's just another way we can justify procrastinating and treating the earth as infinite.
Classmates.com members who upgraded to premium memberships after receiving one of the 'guestbook' emails will be able to choose either a $3 cash payout or a $2 credit toward the future purchase or renewal of a Classmates.com membership.
Huh? They're offering a cash payout or 33% less money that you can only spend on the site that scammed you?
Better get working now on a decision-making chart if this applies to you.
It's old news but it should be stressed that corporations are legally obligated toward their shareholders to maximize profits, and this leads to countless sad and ironic situations like this one. Corporations are thus legally obligated to use lobbyists to bend laws, corporations are obligated to outsource jobs even if those are currently held by shareholders themselves, corporations are obligated to maximize externalities which usually wreaks havoc on the environment, etc. Hell, assuming that releasing their headcounts would hurt their business (as it would!), they are basically legally obligated not to do so.
That is totally fucked up and backwards, plain and simple. Like American drug laws, it seems inconceivable that any group of reasonable legislators would ever design this current system. We have historical quirks and abuses to thanks for this.
This article describes a very similar process from a New York company that uses supercritical diesel fuel -- and they report much more sensible efficiency gains of up to 10%. They've only tested in a lab setting so far though.
I found the article because I was looking for the supercritical points of gasoline, which is a complex mixture of many different hydrocarbons, making the critical points very tricky to estimate. Turns out they are 720K and 60Mpa, from the article above. Their system achieves temperatures this high (almost 400 degrees higher than normal fuel system operations) using exhaust heat. Given that higher temperatures mean improved efficiency, I'd buy the 10% they propose -- though I remain very skeptical abut the 50% proposed in this article.
I love cracking jokes about children being forced to make our crap and defending sweatshop labour as much as the next guy, but some of the comments on this story have my stomach turning. If the choice is between having families out of work and having them work for little money, then fine; run the factories. But that is a very selective framing of this issue and is utterly uninformative. The developed world (not "the West", which is a meaningless term) and our corporations interact with the third world in an extremely complex way which the above scenario completely oversimplifies.
Between extremes of us taking advantage of cheap labour, and us setting the scene for that cheap labour to exist, we are far closer to the latter option. See the progress of the IMF and the World Bank for examples.
I know the rebuttal: Well, how would you feel about paying 10x as much for your electronics !11!!1 But even if costs would escalate that high - and they wouldn't because employing our own workers instead would have loads of offsetting, positive effects for our economies and increasing salaries for impoverished workers by a factor of 10 only increases total costs by a portion of that - I'm more comfortable with that than saying that some people's lives are essentially worthless because of where they're born. And I suspect that if consumers were forced to really consider how their dollars 'supported' poor economies, maybe if all stores had to show in-store videos of their factories chugging along, then paying a little more for a higher quality product and higher quality lives wouldn't seem so bad.
Slashdot Mirror
The administrator's defense: The university could not access twitter from behind the firewall!
I for one, do not think man should have his hands in his genes fiddling with himself. But then again, this is slashdot afterall, so.....
But wouldn't a spiny penis help men to keep their hands out of their jeans?
Ohhhh, genes you say. . .
Fleming's team shot muons produced at the TRIUMF accelerator in Vancouver into a cloud of helium, molecular hydrogen and ammonia. The helium atoms captured the muons, then pulled hydrogen atoms away from the molecular hydrogen and bonded with them.
This was all done at TRIUMF, the world's largest cyclotron and by far the best particle accelerator in Canada. Plus, Donald Truhlar (a giant in the field) supported the experimental rate constants with quantum mechanical predictions - very neat stuff indeed!
He's too old? Is it time to start writing his eulergy?
Huh, I don't get it. The hell is an oil-er-gy?
I'm also not clear on why Ken Ono would be described as hitting good ol' Eul just for completing a theory of his:
...which is like striking oil in mathematics."
Why propose that tears caused by a fight might have significant chemical differences from tears caused by a sad movie instead of considering a hugely different state of mind for the male?
Occam's razor: maybe men who are having a tiff with a lover and see a tear will react differently than men sitting in an experimenter's room, smelling unlabeled vials.
So, maybe I get the cheapo internet connection, but when I download content I pay for from places like Amazon, iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, etc, I get faster download and no cap on the traffic, because the content providers setup a deal with the ISP.
Something like this being implemented is exactly how the internet could cease to be free in a very short time. Though your proposal sounds reasonable, It's not a far stretch to see such a tiered service offering increasingly slow service (relative to technological progress) to at all but the highest tiers, but then allowing extremely fast access to their corporate partners. Maybe the price gap between those services will also grow until eventually only a few will be willing to pay for the 'premium service' and everyone else will accept the non-neutral net as is. If it stopped there, then at least the only bias in the system would be towards big entertainment providers, but it's not hard to imagine the big news providers getting on board eventually too. Heck, there's already been a lot of pressure on the BBC to pay ISPs for the bandwidth its streaming content consumes
That leaves us with an internet biased towards non-independent media as well - exactly like modern day radio, newspapers, and television - but who's to say it would stop there? Maybe one day you find that the Financial Times loads faster than The Nation, or vice versa, etc etc.
This is exactly the sort of slow evolution that will take the internet from us, rather than an overnight transformation. It won't be much different that what happened to all other free forms of communication. And hopefully, it's exactly what the FCC trying to avoid by deliberating carefully on how to structure net neutrality regulation. If you leave any sort of gaps, even if they sound reasonable at the time, you can be damn sure they will grow until the net as we know it is unrecognizable.
"In any immunology textbook you will read that once a virus makes it into a cell, that is game over because the cell is now infected. At that point there is nothing the immune response can do other than kill that cell," said Leo James, who led the research team.
But they showed a mechanism by which the body's cells can destroy the virus before the cell becomes controlled by the virus but after the virus has entered the cell. This is quite unprecedented as it allows that cell to recover, and therefore reduces the need for the immune system to have to launch attacks on our own cells, as occurs in a normal immune response and becomes uncontrolled in a cytokine storm.
In other words, this looks promising!
If Google had not used any loopholes and paid, say $3B more in taxes, then $3B would be passed on to its customers in the form of increased costs, so it ends up being a tax on the customer.
That is extraordinarily naive. You're saying that Google's profit is fixed and its prices are totally flexible, and that changing those prices wont' affect the quantity of business that it does. No way.
In reality, Google would probably realize that increasing ads (effectively charging consumers more) would drive customers to a competitor, say Bing, and so they would be forced to just accept a lower profit margin. Not such an outlandish idea given how much profit they would still make.
But your assumption that all tax avoidance by big corporations are passed on to the consumer in savings is nothing short of absurd, tea-baggish nonsense.
Buggy? No sir, you've just discovered slashdot's latest feature! Automatic selection of the most sensationalist headline possible, honesty be damned.
Sure explains a lot around here.
You didn't know that our Minister of Science is a creationist chiropractor?
Or that the government recently claimed that statistics showing a decrease in crime over the last years are not to be trusted?
Or even the recent slashdot story of the government meddling with reports from government labs on certainly "politically charged" scientific topics? Etc etc.
If that's the case, I don't see how you can make any claim about this being newsworthy or not from under the rock you are inhabiting. And frankly, even if every Canadian was properly informed and realized this government has set the bar for anti-science policy, why would the new development of some group finally standing up to said government on behalf of scientists not be newsworthy?
Environment or revenue generation?
Both, of course. Generally speaking, we can only get the former when it allows for the latter as well.
Trash pick-up is a municipal service - they have every right to stipulate that you should follow certain conditions in order to use their service. If you don't want to use their service, I'm sure that they won't mind. But by agreeing to use it, you accept their terms, and if you violate them then you pay a penalty. Seems more like a business than a government in this way.
But, despite partaking in countless similar arrangements with government and business alike, you extrapolate this one contract to some sort of dystopian future with "Re-education Camps" and the like... really, come on. Take off the tin-foil hat and get some sun!
My new definition of irony:
A story on great leaps in progress being made because of openness being closed off behind a paywall.
I really doubt that these shops are actually getting customers actively coming to them and saying how much they prefer lack of wireless. It is an invisible service... if you do not actively use it then you have no idea if it is there or not.
At my favourite local coffee shop in Canada's Seattle, Vancouver, they do not have wireless. But they do have a posted manifesto explaining why they've made the conscious choice to remain internet-free; to improve the environment and mimic the social-hub that coffee shops originally were, back in the day.
After reading that - which makes a lot of sense if you've seen some of the other "jacked-in" coffee shops around here - I offered my compliments to the nearest employee. It does happen! And, by the way, this coffee shop is thriving - it seems I'm not alone in liking their vibe!
I used to hate kdawson only for his idiotic political posts during the final days of the Bush administration.
I know, right? There's nothing worse than people injecting politics into an otherwise technical discussion. Too bad it's all too common. . .
-- The fear of libertarianism is the terror that the mediocre feel at the possibility of being judged on their merits.
Huh.
This group has published a good deal of work in free-to-access journals, like this article which was published in 2005 and is on the exact subject of this Nature work with just a little less information on the mechanism of action. They just sought a little more attention (not to mention funding) for their impressive work.
I'm no fan of pay walls, but the fact that I didn't hear about the work published PNAS for five years, but did hear about the similar work published in Nature within a week of its publishing justifies their choice of journal to me.
tl;dnr: An older version of this paper is available without paying here.
It's too bad that I won't be able to take this baby for a spin...
2) Tort reform is necessary. ....
That won't really accomplish much. Even the quickest search reveals that the cost of medical malpractice is less than 2% - a rounding error compared to total costs..
You mention the costs of malpractice suits but you ignore the much larger effects the current tort system has on doctors, as the GP mentioned.
When doctors fear lawsuits around every corner, they practice medicine differently - they ignore their instincts and instead try and cover their asses. This means using far more diagnostic tests, prescribing more antibiotics, admitting patients more often and for longer, etc etc. They're even less likely to work in hospitals and situations where these aren't options, because they can easily end up on the hook for an institution's lack of tools, which compounds the problems of low-budget hospitals.
It's not hard to see why this is a big problem for the system as a whole - expenses go up and the well-being of patients goes down
But can it produce enough electricity to power a small radio that plays the music used to create the vibrations necessary to produce the electricity?
No.
Sincerely yours,
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
This hardly needs saying, but that's more or less like arguing that we don't need to worry about burning through our fossil fuel supplies because we can synthesize those fuels again from waste products, or other resources. After all, most of the products of combustion won't be leaving our atmosphere anytime soon.
This thinking is only valid if we have a lot of available energy, and in this case, technology for more efficient recycling. Yes, it's easier to recycle small solids that are largely sitting among other solids than it is to purify condensed matter and generate specific hydrocarbons, but this in no way suggests that we shouldn't be thinking about this now. It's just another way we can justify procrastinating and treating the earth as infinite.
Classmates.com members who upgraded to premium memberships after receiving one of the 'guestbook' emails will be able to choose either a $3 cash payout or a $2 credit toward the future purchase or renewal of a Classmates.com membership.
Huh? They're offering a cash payout or 33% less money that you can only spend on the site that scammed you?
Better get working now on a decision-making chart if this applies to you.
It's old news but it should be stressed that corporations are legally obligated toward their shareholders to maximize profits, and this leads to countless sad and ironic situations like this one. Corporations are thus legally obligated to use lobbyists to bend laws, corporations are obligated to outsource jobs even if those are currently held by shareholders themselves, corporations are obligated to maximize externalities which usually wreaks havoc on the environment, etc. Hell, assuming that releasing their headcounts would hurt their business (as it would!), they are basically legally obligated not to do so.
That is totally fucked up and backwards, plain and simple. Like American drug laws, it seems inconceivable that any group of reasonable legislators would ever design this current system. We have historical quirks and abuses to thanks for this.
My bet is the first mod adds it back in.
Voltaire would think so; since God does not exist, it will be necessary to invent him
This article describes a very similar process from a New York company that uses supercritical diesel fuel -- and they report much more sensible efficiency gains of up to 10%. They've only tested in a lab setting so far though.
I found the article because I was looking for the supercritical points of gasoline, which is a complex mixture of many different hydrocarbons, making the critical points very tricky to estimate. Turns out they are 720K and 60Mpa, from the article above. Their system achieves temperatures this high (almost 400 degrees higher than normal fuel system operations) using exhaust heat. Given that higher temperatures mean improved efficiency, I'd buy the 10% they propose -- though I remain very skeptical abut the 50% proposed in this article.
I love cracking jokes about children being forced to make our crap and defending sweatshop labour as much as the next guy, but some of the comments on this story have my stomach turning. If the choice is between having families out of work and having them work for little money, then fine; run the factories. But that is a very selective framing of this issue and is utterly uninformative. The developed world (not "the West", which is a meaningless term) and our corporations interact with the third world in an extremely complex way which the above scenario completely oversimplifies.
Between extremes of us taking advantage of cheap labour, and us setting the scene for that cheap labour to exist, we are far closer to the latter option. See the progress of the IMF and the World Bank for examples.
I know the rebuttal: Well, how would you feel about paying 10x as much for your electronics !11!!1 But even if costs would escalate that high - and they wouldn't because employing our own workers instead would have loads of offsetting, positive effects for our economies and increasing salaries for impoverished workers by a factor of 10 only increases total costs by a portion of that - I'm more comfortable with that than saying that some people's lives are essentially worthless because of where they're born. And I suspect that if consumers were forced to really consider how their dollars 'supported' poor economies, maybe if all stores had to show in-store videos of their factories chugging along, then paying a little more for a higher quality product and higher quality lives wouldn't seem so bad.