There's very much relevance when some asshat suggests China has a better model of government (unless that was done sarcastically to highlight just how far we've fallen).
Umm... what to say? Let's examine the cited context:
on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @12:18AM, AthanasiusKircher wrote: Ball lightning is just one of those things that so many people have claimed to see, and it seems odd that scientists have so much trouble catching evidence of natural occurrences...
I'm raising the question: how one would expect to catch evidence of natural occurrences without taking a field trip? Would you suggest... modeling/replicating it in the lab? Like: "Give me the expensive toys otherwise you, the gov or funding body, don't love science"? Is then a wonder the western scientists struggle for budget?
There's a new trend on/. of love of totalitarian government, and it's a very dangerous idea. While US and Canadian scientists may struggle for funding, that's a far cry from fearing to publish research that could be somehow be taken as some sort of criticism of some government decision.
Mate, when I was a kid, the admission coming from an American of the fact the Russians in the former USSR were doing science was in no way interpreted as "the admission shows love for communists".
In my opinion, your invoked relevance of your post to the topic is pure, unadulterated BS... and carries all the risks the "head in the sand" position carry; the Chinese do make science in spite of being led by a totalitarian regime (even if you are inclined to dismiss the science and see only the totalitarian regime).
Now, mods, feel free to mod me offtopic, 'cause everything in this post has no relevance to the story
Interesting, but bears the same relevance to the current topic as discussing the situation of Ohio death-row relevance to NASA's 0.5% of GDP budget - both happens in US, but there's no relevance in considering them together.
Marginalized people like Neo Nazis* aren't allowed to speak in countries like France and Germany, they know there a minority so voting won't work, and no way that they would be allowed on a Jury.
The way I know (but I might be wrong) neither France nor Germany has the institution of Jury.
With that in mind it's surprising that we haven't seen more violence out of people like them.
Well, other places, other folks, other habits (I'm deliberately letting aside the mater of culture)... Somehow, I don't find it strange at all (and no longer feel an urge to judge them).
*They're marginalized because they're horrid and nuts, but that just makes them more likely to do something dangerous and crazy.
Ummm... every "circle" has a fringe... of course there will always be some that would be disliked and avoided the most and highly probable they'd be considered nuts ("if only they'd change a bit their behavior, they'd be closer to the norm and accepted. They must be nuts to refuse to change"). I.e. if there would not be the nazi, some other group would be pushed outwards and become "the fringe"
Ball lightning is just one of those things that so many people have claimed to see, and it seems odd that scientists have so much trouble catching evidence of natural occurrences... so when you finally think you've got it, you want to be sure.
Also on the speculative path... I reckon one must be a Chinese scientist to get out on field trips and actually do something with a (2 actually) spectrograph... Seems their "westernized" counterparts are busy fighting for grants (i.e. survival) and organizing sneaker nets to smuggle scientific journals
That is what Ping Yuan and co-workers from Northwest Normal University in Lanzhou, China, now report. They had set up spectrometers on the remote Qinghai Plateau of northwest China to investigate ordinary lightning, which is frequent in this region. During one late-evening thunderstorm in July 2012, they saw ball lightning appear just after a lightning strike about 900 meters from their apparatus and were able to record a spectrum and high-speed video footage of the ball.
(groan)... seems there are publications much slower than/. - this was supposed to be news one year and a half ago.
The robots have their own server where they can share info. So the cloud because a database on a server and the world wide web is actually just a database where they share info.
yes, they do and it is so because everybody buys server time from everybody else. You just be careful with that cable.
all scientists really needed to identify the Pacific Bluefin tuna, dolphinfish and most of the other 13,000 fish swimming there
What about species no-one knows about?
You think there were fish species no one knows about swimming in "Monterey Bay Aquarium's 1.2 million-gallon Open Sea tank" (from the part of TFS you omitted)? How would they have gotten in there?
From the same TFS that you referred:
Fish shed cells from their skin, damaged tissues and as body wastes. 'Every one of those cells has DNA and if you have the right tools you can tell what species the cell came from. Now we're working to find the relative abundance of each species present,' he said."
Do you think they are working to determine the abundance of each species in the "Monterey Bay Aquarium's 1.2 million-gallon Open Sea tank"? 'Cause... you know?... that would be a question which can find an answer by more practical means.
In a simplified example say you have organisms A, B and C. A and B are closest genetically, A and C are furthest away while B and C are the same distance away from each other. One would look at this and assume A, B and C are separate species. However you then observe in the wild that B and C are able to breed, perhaps B and C are one species while A is separate? This is one of many examples of how genetic information can mislead species information
Fine and dandy.
Now, let's take another case: you know species A, you know nothing about B and C. Thus you can tell "A was here" but... can you tell there are other (exactly) two that "were here" as well? Maybe they were only one, maybe more than two. How can you tell?
The scientists can pull the devices to lengths 57% greater than their resting length without disrupting performance."
Monitors 57% larger with a resolution lower than a smart phone display? No thanks, I had enough
On the flip (and flop) side(s):
* if they manage to compress those transitors to 57% of their resting size without disrupting performance, we may get another cheap two years of Moore's law.
* (grin) I like much better devices that one pushes - in contrast to pulling (as the time passes, everyone - no matter the gender - will be reminded a meaning of "floppy devices" that doesn't relate to IT).
MPHJ has a First Amendment right to notify companies that it believes its patents are being infringed.
What? Isn't this akin to saying the spam in my inbox is protected by the first ammendment, since the senders have an religious belief/conviction I'd be interested in cheap Viagra?
And here I thought the Chinese net was slow because of the Chinese gov monitoring everything. Turns out it was the NSA.
No, the net is still slow because of the chinese. What's slow because of the NSA it's your keyboard (and has nothing to do with Windows 8.1)
(large grin)
Leaking this info is not in the "public interest" (well the Chinese public, possibly).
At least now that's in the open you can sacrifice a bit of tinfoil to make a cover for your computer and stop the RF leaks... what if the Chinese knew about and were already listening to your computer from 8 miles away?
BTW, bombman, how do you know it's not actually the Chinese at the origin of the leak?
Ok, so I get the whole whistle blower thing but isn't this what the NSA is supposed to be doing? Spying on Americans is ok to get fussy about but why was this leaked and why doesn't the NYT realize that this actually does set back U.S. intelligence? Are they also going to release a story detailing what the Chinese are doing to spy on US from leaked Chinese intelligence?
The problem with security by obscurity: one never knows when the adversary manages to shed a light into the obscure and start exploting the backdoor without your knowledge.
The implication: how would you like... (if you feel so strong to cast them into an adversary, be it)... the Chinese Intelligence to discover that backdoor by themselves and start spying on you from 8 miles away? Or spy on some computers in universities running some defense research? (you got the gist... I hope). How do you know it haven't already happened? Or... do you use to take your adversaries for the stupid?
Shouldn't have shot the guy, of course, but have to say when I see the bright glow of cell phones during a movie I wonder why I'm in the theater rather than watching in the comfort of my own home...
Worrisome... you start showing signs of rationality. You are to stop immediately, with people like you the entire movie industry may collapse.
That has made foreign content cheaper than apps, MP3 downloads, software, and e-books distributed domestically.
Or, are you somehow suggesting "Slashdot should be enough for anybody"?
Bingo. To be more precise, I was hinting that/. is cheap enough for everybody (as in "a great way of killing time and getting nothing in return". You don't believe me? Read this thread again)
In a german movie where a few scenes are in the original language, e.g. a texas guy speaking to a scotch, they would take extra care that the texanian speaks in a texas accent/dialect and the scotisch with a scotisch dialect.
Gosh, how wrong this could be.
1. texans would never speak to a scotch, even if it may happen to them to speak to a bourbon whisky
2. there's no such thing as a scotisch dialect. At most, there could be a minor speach impediment (like in "a serious slur") caused by excess of schnaps (yeeahh... you may be onto something... Scotish may sound like that)
Ah you must be American for you've never heard of guys like Stalin or Mao.
But... they weren't terrorists, they were the "heroes of their people" (grin). You see, they acted within the bound of the law (pretty much as NSA does lately).
Slashdot Mirror
You're just jerking your knee cause when it comes to automated technology, that is the "fashionable" thing to do these days.
Knee jerking has recently been automated.
True... but you have to pay a lease to access it.
There's very much relevance when some asshat suggests China has a better model of government (unless that was done sarcastically to highlight just how far we've fallen).
Umm... what to say? Let's examine the cited context:
on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @12:18AM, AthanasiusKircher wrote:
Ball lightning is just one of those things that so many people have claimed to see, and it seems odd that scientists have so much trouble catching evidence of natural occurrences...
I'm raising the question: how one would expect to catch evidence of natural occurrences without taking a field trip?
Would you suggest... modeling/replicating it in the lab? Like: "Give me the expensive toys otherwise you, the gov or funding body, don't love science"? Is then a wonder the western scientists struggle for budget?
There's a new trend on /. of love of totalitarian government, and it's a very dangerous idea. While US and Canadian scientists may struggle for funding, that's a far cry from fearing to publish research that could be somehow be taken as some sort of criticism of some government decision.
Mate, when I was a kid, the admission coming from an American of the fact the Russians in the former USSR were doing science was in no way interpreted as "the admission shows love for communists".
In my opinion, your invoked relevance of your post to the topic is pure, unadulterated BS... and carries all the risks the "head in the sand" position carry; the Chinese do make science in spite of being led by a totalitarian regime (even if you are inclined to dismiss the science and see only the totalitarian regime).
Now, mods, feel free to mod me offtopic, 'cause everything in this post has no relevance to the story
Interesting, but bears the same relevance to the current topic as discussing the situation of Ohio death-row relevance to NASA's 0.5% of GDP budget - both happens in US, but there's no relevance in considering them together.
Marginalized people like Neo Nazis* aren't allowed to speak in countries like France and Germany, they know there a minority so voting won't work, and no way that they would be allowed on a Jury.
The way I know (but I might be wrong) neither France nor Germany has the institution of Jury.
With that in mind it's surprising that we haven't seen more violence out of people like them.
Well, other places, other folks, other habits (I'm deliberately letting aside the mater of culture)... Somehow, I don't find it strange at all (and no longer feel an urge to judge them).
*They're marginalized because they're horrid and nuts, but that just makes them more likely to do something dangerous and crazy.
Ummm... every "circle" has a fringe... of course there will always be some that would be disliked and avoided the most and highly probable they'd be considered nuts ("if only they'd change a bit their behavior, they'd be closer to the norm and accepted. They must be nuts to refuse to change"). I.e. if there would not be the nazi, some other group would be pushed outwards and become "the fringe"
Some people have a HUGE problem with its collection and storage by greedy, sleazy, single minded corporations.
Greedy, yes. Sleazy... maybe, highly probable. Single minded? In Google's case, I doubt it: they are a too intelligent bunch.
When you combine that with the lack of free speech in many EU countries it doesn't paint a pretty picture.
Lack of explicit regulation/laws on free speech and lack of free speech are two different things.
Remove all the services, and only leave them search. See how the people of the EU like that.
That would be cool, but won't necessarily get Google off the hook: tracking/profiling the searches would still be a privacy violation.
Ball lightning is just one of those things that so many people have claimed to see, and it seems odd that scientists have so much trouble catching evidence of natural occurrences... so when you finally think you've got it, you want to be sure.
Also on the speculative path... I reckon one must be a Chinese scientist to get out on field trips and actually do something with a (2 actually) spectrograph...
Seems their "westernized" counterparts are busy fighting for grants (i.e. survival) and organizing sneaker nets to smuggle scientific journals
It's available here: http://physics.aps.org/article...
Not much to see though.
From the link, with my emphasis:
That is what Ping Yuan and co-workers from Northwest Normal University in Lanzhou, China, now report. They had set up spectrometers on the remote Qinghai Plateau of northwest China to investigate ordinary lightning, which is frequent in this region. During one late-evening thunderstorm in July 2012, they saw ball lightning appear just after a lightning strike about 900 meters from their apparatus and were able to record a spectrum and high-speed video footage of the ball.
(groan) ... seems there are publications much slower than /. - this was supposed to be news one year and a half ago.
The robots have their own server where they can share info. So the cloud because a database on a server and the world wide web is actually just a database where they share info.
yes, they do and it is so because everybody buys server time from everybody else. You just be careful with that cable.
I wonder what type of robot porn they`ll put on their robot internet
Until they get there, they'll need their own "A.I. Gore" to "invent their own internet properly".
all scientists really needed to identify the Pacific Bluefin tuna, dolphinfish and most of the other 13,000 fish swimming there
What about species no-one knows about?
You think there were fish species no one knows about swimming in "Monterey Bay Aquarium's 1.2 million-gallon Open Sea tank" (from the part of TFS you omitted)? How would they have gotten in there?
From the same TFS that you referred:
Fish shed cells from their skin, damaged tissues and as body wastes. 'Every one of those cells has DNA and if you have the right tools you can tell what species the cell came from. Now we're working to find the relative abundance of each species present,' he said."
Do you think they are working to determine the abundance of each species in the "Monterey Bay Aquarium's 1.2 million-gallon Open Sea tank"? 'Cause... you know?... that would be a question which can find an answer by more practical means.
In a simplified example say you have organisms A, B and C. A and B are closest genetically, A and C are furthest away while B and C are the same distance away from each other. One would look at this and assume A, B and C are separate species. However you then observe in the wild that B and C are able to breed, perhaps B and C are one species while A is separate? This is one of many examples of how genetic information can mislead species information
Fine and dandy.
Now, let's take another case: you know species A, you know nothing about B and C. Thus you can tell "A was here" but... can you tell there are other (exactly) two that "were here" as well? Maybe they were only one, maybe more than two. How can you tell?
"the machine says that by far the pacific is full of a fish called...poly vinyl chloride. hm, that's a funny name."
I guess it's more likely to identify the "Poly Yeti Lenne" species - rationale: PVC will sink to the bottom (30-45% denser than the water).
all scientists really needed to identify the Pacific Bluefin tuna, dolphinfish and most of the other 13,000 fish swimming there
What about species no-one knows about?
The scientists can pull the devices to lengths 57% greater than their resting length without disrupting performance."
Monitors 57% larger with a resolution lower than a smart phone display? No thanks, I had enough
On the flip (and flop) side(s):
* if they manage to compress those transitors to 57% of their resting size without disrupting performance, we may get another cheap two years of Moore's law.
* (grin) I like much better devices that one pushes - in contrast to pulling (as the time passes, everyone - no matter the gender - will be reminded a meaning of "floppy devices" that doesn't relate to IT).
MPHJ has a First Amendment right to notify companies that it believes its patents are being infringed.
What? Isn't this akin to saying the spam in my inbox is protected by the first ammendment, since the senders have an religious belief/conviction I'd be interested in cheap Viagra?
And here I thought the Chinese net was slow because of the Chinese gov monitoring everything. Turns out it was the NSA.
No, the net is still slow because of the chinese. What's slow because of the NSA it's your keyboard (and has nothing to do with Windows 8.1)
(large grin)
Leaking this info is not in the "public interest" (well the Chinese public, possibly).
At least now that's in the open you can sacrifice a bit of tinfoil to make a cover for your computer and stop the RF leaks... what if the Chinese knew about and were already listening to your computer from 8 miles away?
BTW, bombman, how do you know it's not actually the Chinese at the origin of the leak?
Ok, so I get the whole whistle blower thing but isn't this what the NSA is supposed to be doing? Spying on Americans is ok to get fussy about but why was this leaked and why doesn't the NYT realize that this actually does set back U.S. intelligence? Are they also going to release a story detailing what the Chinese are doing to spy on US from leaked Chinese intelligence?
The problem with security by obscurity: one never knows when the adversary manages to shed a light into the obscure and start exploting the backdoor without your knowledge.
The implication: how would you like ... (if you feel so strong to cast them into an adversary, be it)... the Chinese Intelligence to discover that backdoor by themselves and start spying on you from 8 miles away? Or spy on some computers in universities running some defense research? (you got the gist... I hope). How do you know it haven't already happened?
Or... do you use to take your adversaries for the stupid?
(BTW: nice nick, datapharmer)
Shouldn't have shot the guy, of course, but have to say when I see the bright glow of cell phones during a movie I wonder why I'm in the theater rather than watching in the comfort of my own home...
Worrisome... you start showing signs of rationality. You are to stop immediately, with people like you the entire movie industry may collapse.
(grin)
Ummm ... it's right there in the summary:
Or, are you somehow suggesting "Slashdot should be enough for anybody"?
Bingo. To be more precise, I was hinting that /. is cheap enough for everybody (as in "a great way of killing time and getting nothing in return". You don't believe me? Read this thread again)
I know for a fact there's a Japanese edition of /.
In a german movie where a few scenes are in the original language, e.g. a texas guy speaking to a scotch, they would take extra care that the texanian speaks in a texas accent/dialect and the scotisch with a scotisch dialect.
Gosh, how wrong this could be.
1. texans would never speak to a scotch, even if it may happen to them to speak to a bourbon whisky
2. there's no such thing as a scotisch dialect. At most, there could be a minor speach impediment (like in "a serious slur") caused by excess of schnaps (yeeahh... you may be onto something... Scotish may sound like that)
Why would anyone go to the trouble to even think that analyzing "source code" posted in movies is a useful endeavor? YAWN.
On the same line of rationing (not that I agree with it): why would anyone think posting on /. is a useful endeavor?
Ah you must be American for you've never heard of guys like Stalin or Mao.
But... they weren't terrorists, they were the "heroes of their people" (grin).
You see, they acted within the bound of the law (pretty much as NSA does lately).