Such a tiny lens is going to run into problems with diffraction. Perhaps 100 um is usable, but the image won't be crisp. There is a reason insects have compound eyes. The devices that get around diffraction-limited imaging are scanning-type devices, like tunneling scanning EM.
Impressive! Predicting not 2, not 2.0, but 1.99 per 100K! And 4.46 per 100K, etc. Anybody who believes that kind of precision does not understand statistics. And anybody who would publish it is not (in my eyes) credible.
My wife's computer also. Spent 1-1/2 hours with MS tech support to get it working. Actually it said I COULD revert to W7, but it would take quite a while. I decided to just go with 10 since I was going to do so before the "free" upgrade period was over. But it was pretty sneaky of MS.
My daughter teaches in the state of Washington; There, they mandate testing via computers, I suppose for "efficiency" and because Bill Gates generously and altruistically gave them lots of computers. So what happens? They only have enough computer stations to test 1/3 of the students at a time. So for a period of 3 weeks each semester, 1/3 of my daughter's students are missing -- a difference 1/3 each week. Students are losing a huge amount of learning time taking these mostly meaningless tests. In Denmark, they don't even test grade-school students at all some years, and they out-learn our students by every measure. Their teachers are free to teach, and free from teaching to the test. It gets worse. The State of Washington's solution to increasing teacher competency is not to pay them better or increase the rigor of teacher training in the universities. It is to recently mandate that all teachers pass National Board Certification every 5 years. My daughter says that amounts to doing a master's thesis every five years. I am not opposed to lots of education for teachers -- I have a Ph.D in physics -- but this is just nuts. Washington's non-elected apparatchiks have apparently been taking advantage of that state's easy access to weed. They will only succeed in driving talented teachers out of education altogether, and leave behind those who really don't care but like the security and benefits.
After 30 years of teaching university physics, I have noticed the slow slide in ability to work with numbers among those fresh out of high school. (Heck, even college seniors.) They are crippled by calculators. My kids were required to have graphing calculators in high school --- what a joke! All they learned was how to punch a sequence of keys. And yet the math teachers loved it because it FELT like they were somehow cutting edge and really doing some good. HS graduates would be much more "numerate" if we just banned calculators from math classes in the public schools. This opinion is shared by many of my colleagues. (I have not done a real study of their opinions, so I won't say "most".)
If I may add to this. Can somebody tell me where it was written into the Science Canon that science must be based on strict materialism? Galileo (who was our first truly modern scientist) didn't believe it. Nor did Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and a number of other greats. It is a fallacy that science must be based on strict materialism. Intelligent Design is just another way of trying to understand some of the design in the universe that everyone acknowledges. I'm not advocating teaching it in the public schools! I'm just saying it ought to be taken seriously. When Galileo published his observations of the moons of Jupiter, some clerics were upset and denied that it could be possible. Galileo invited them to look through his telescope. A number refused. Those who reject ID ouright remind me strongly of those scholastics who already had their minds made up; they will not open their minds enought to look through the ID "telescope". Geek culture does not help. There is a general assumption that religion is for the weak-minded and that "we" are all in on the joke. One cannot question these implicit assumptions without being flamed. Thus real inquiry is stifled.
Slashdot Mirror
Such a tiny lens is going to run into problems with diffraction. Perhaps 100 um is usable, but the image won't be crisp. There is a reason insects have compound eyes. The devices that get around diffraction-limited imaging are scanning-type devices, like tunneling scanning EM.
Impressive! Predicting not 2, not 2.0, but 1.99 per 100K! And 4.46 per 100K, etc. Anybody who believes that kind of precision does not understand statistics. And anybody who would publish it is not (in my eyes) credible.
My wife's computer also. Spent 1-1/2 hours with MS tech support to get it working. Actually it said I COULD revert to W7, but it would take quite a while. I decided to just go with 10 since I was going to do so before the "free" upgrade period was over. But it was pretty sneaky of MS.
Or "guess". But not "theorize". Ah, the pain.
My daughter teaches in the state of Washington; There, they mandate testing via computers, I suppose for "efficiency" and because Bill Gates generously and altruistically gave them lots of computers. So what happens? They only have enough computer stations to test 1/3 of the students at a time. So for a period of 3 weeks each semester, 1/3 of my daughter's students are missing -- a difference 1/3 each week. Students are losing a huge amount of learning time taking these mostly meaningless tests. In Denmark, they don't even test grade-school students at all some years, and they out-learn our students by every measure. Their teachers are free to teach, and free from teaching to the test. It gets worse. The State of Washington's solution to increasing teacher competency is not to pay them better or increase the rigor of teacher training in the universities. It is to recently mandate that all teachers pass National Board Certification every 5 years. My daughter says that amounts to doing a master's thesis every five years. I am not opposed to lots of education for teachers -- I have a Ph.D in physics -- but this is just nuts. Washington's non-elected apparatchiks have apparently been taking advantage of that state's easy access to weed. They will only succeed in driving talented teachers out of education altogether, and leave behind those who really don't care but like the security and benefits.
After 30 years of teaching university physics, I have noticed the slow slide in ability to work with numbers among those fresh out of high school. (Heck, even college seniors.) They are crippled by calculators. My kids were required to have graphing calculators in high school --- what a joke! All they learned was how to punch a sequence of keys. And yet the math teachers loved it because it FELT like they were somehow cutting edge and really doing some good. HS graduates would be much more "numerate" if we just banned calculators from math classes in the public schools. This opinion is shared by many of my colleagues. (I have not done a real study of their opinions, so I won't say "most".)
If I may add to this. Can somebody tell me where it was written into the Science Canon that science must be based on strict materialism? Galileo (who was our first truly modern scientist) didn't believe it. Nor did Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and a number of other greats. It is a fallacy that science must be based on strict materialism. Intelligent Design is just another way of trying to understand some of the design in the universe that everyone acknowledges. I'm not advocating teaching it in the public schools! I'm just saying it ought to be taken seriously. When Galileo published his observations of the moons of Jupiter, some clerics were upset and denied that it could be possible. Galileo invited them to look through his telescope. A number refused. Those who reject ID ouright remind me strongly of those scholastics who already had their minds made up; they will not open their minds enought to look through the ID "telescope". Geek culture does not help. There is a general assumption that religion is for the weak-minded and that "we" are all in on the joke. One cannot question these implicit assumptions without being flamed. Thus real inquiry is stifled.