The fluid doesn't get moved much, just pushed a little bit -- it's a semicircular canal after all, not a full torus. The pressures sensed by the cupola are on the order of probably nanopascals. This is nowhere near a "considerable" force.
Try it with your eyes closed, in a darkened room:) Some people are better than others at suppressing nystagmus when there's something to look at.
The effect does not care about gradients, just about a static field. Most people are blissfully unaware of having nystagmus, you'd have to train yourself to recognize it. Our visual system will lie to you when you have nystagmus and you'll feel like you don't have it.
Do not close your eyes, and keep plenty of illumination (the more the better). This can at least inhibit the nystagmus to some extent. So at least you won't lose your visual acuity. The extra scary part, when talking about paperclips and such small things, is that inappropriate nystagmus (such as in a large magnetic field) causes you to lose visual sensitivity to high spatial frequencies, and paradoxically increases sensitivity to low spatial frequencies. You stop seeing small stuff, and you can remain unaware of it. The brain will, for a while, substitute made-up stuff to match your expectations. This is what gets fighter pilots killed: they get G-force induced nystagmus, lose acuity needed to read the instruments, and their brain is substituting expected (but incorrect) values for real instrument readings...
The original article in Current Biology (abstract free, rest behind paywall) clearly says that gradients are irrelevant. It's a Lorentz force, for that you simply need a large static field. Moving your head probably exaggerates the effect because there's a mismatch between vestibular input and visual and proprioception inputs. What's important is that for the first time they had clearly shown that it's a Lorentz force, causing a pressure signal to be applied to the cupola in the semicircular canal. Nobody else has conclusively shown that before.
Fluid being ionic is one thing, but there are actually ionic currents, and that's what the dealbreaker. And they must flow perpendicular to the pipe holding the fluid (the semicircular canal). It's an interesting confluence of things.
It's merely a byproduct of how semicircular canals work. We need them, without them our vision would be shot (never mind the balance!). It just so happens that they have ionic currents flowing across the channels. You need several Teslas to show the effect. There's nothing vestigial about it -- there was never a natural magnetic field that strong anywhere near animals with labyrinths in inner ear.
The subject matter of science, however, does not describe the totality of the human experience.
But it does. We have a faint clue that our brains aren't made out of swiss cheese. The idea that science somehow expects you to use calipers to "measure" beauty is preposterous at best. Science tells us quite well that there are aspects of our brains' functioning that aren't rational. That's fine, and not a reason to deride scientific method. Scientific method as applied to pretty girls isn't about measuring them with calipers. It could be, though, about understanding basic human behavior and knowing how to use it to pick up any girl you want*. Feynman has more to say about that:)
* not that it's always a desirable outcome, for physical beauty isn't end-all-be-all.
I think I agree as to unanswerable questions. My favorite question is about the meaning of { life | suffering | illness | etc. }. I always ask people: does it need to have meaning? What if you knew the answer? Would you be satisfied? Can you think of some potential answers? Do they make you feel any better? I can't wrap my head around people who somehow need to tell themselves "I'm a part of a bigger plan" to feel good. Replace "bigger plan" with "wakalixes" and it doesn't mean any more or less. Gobbledygook...
Agreed. Since the first planes go to ANA (or so it seems), I don't think there'll be a problem with comfort. ANA's economy class, on 747s at least, is like business class on U.S. carriers. I was pretty amazed.
That's probably true as well. I think, though, that SpaceX's relative success so far has shown that subcontractors are a disease. Boeing would be better off, IMHO, doing the stuff themselves.
Doing anything strategic in aviation with terrorists in mind is IMHO retarded. I don't think that having reinforced cockpit doors falls anywhere near big-scale strategy.
That's otherwise called engineering. You can cheat on it, but the nature cannot be fooled. Thus they did their homework and it took time. It's hard to predict how long something will take if noone else has ever attempted it before. You can estimate certain things, but ultimately there will be problems that you have to fix.
More fuel? How much alcohol, realistically, can you have in your body? I doubt you can really store even a liter of ethanol. That'd be two liters of vodka. And apart from what's buried deep in your GI tract, the rest of it is too diluted to be much of a concern.
Drinking simply makes you unaware of being on fire for long enough for the wick effect to get things going. I'm sure many elderly people have problems with peripheral sensing of pain, especially if they have circulation problems. They may well be not drunk and still on fire without knowing. My 30 y.o. friend had a (recently fixed) Chiari malformation, causing her to lose all peripheral sense of touch and pain, even deep pain. She looked like her hubby was beating and scalding her, even though it was of her own doing (no effing pun intended, please).
There's no "magnetic crap". If it can access a USB drive, it's only via BIOS, and then it's as good as anything else, more-or-less. Only older versions talk to drive hardware directly. Sure, it can't recover non-FAT floppies. Tough luck. It's not hard to reimplement the statistical recovery process it uses, it's no magic. It's as much as you can do without custom hardware.
I don't think it was designed to do anything bad like you imply. It will only relocate data (in v5 and earlier) in FAT partitions anyway. If it's not a FAT disk, it won't do any relocating recovery.
v6 uses BIOS and only bios. v5 uses BIOS only if it can't talk to something via IDE/ATAPI or through the floppy controller. v5 does recognize a limited number of hard drives and reconfigures them into a "diagnostic" mode where built-in data recovery is disabled, and the software has better access to raw sector data.
That's fine -- AFTER it recovers. There's nothing wrong with that. A successful recovery means that the CRC had matched. Of course you can get a match on wrong data, but there's a way of running spinrite without having it write anything. It'll simply report what was readable/recoverable and what wasn't.
I think to get it to do a good job on floppies, you need version 4 or 5. Those still talk directly to the floppy controller. The recovery is definitely non-destructive. It simply keeps reading the same sector after approaching it by seeking from different sides IIRC. The data that's read is passed through a statistical model that tries to predict the original values of bytes. It does work sometimes, and would be worth a try. Versions 6 and onwards don't talk directly to hardware and are pretty useless methinks.
Slashdot Mirror
And it helps suppress nystagmus, too (coincidentally).
The fluid doesn't get moved much, just pushed a little bit -- it's a semicircular canal after all, not a full torus. The pressures sensed by the cupola are on the order of probably nanopascals. This is nowhere near a "considerable" force.
Try it with your eyes closed, in a darkened room :) Some people are better than others at suppressing nystagmus when there's something to look at.
The effect does not care about gradients, just about a static field. Most people are blissfully unaware of having nystagmus, you'd have to train yourself to recognize it. Our visual system will lie to you when you have nystagmus and you'll feel like you don't have it.
The chinese medicine is bullshit in that regard. There are no natural magnetic fields anywhere on Earth that are big enough to cause this effect.
Do not close your eyes, and keep plenty of illumination (the more the better). This can at least inhibit the nystagmus to some extent. So at least you won't lose your visual acuity. The extra scary part, when talking about paperclips and such small things, is that inappropriate nystagmus (such as in a large magnetic field) causes you to lose visual sensitivity to high spatial frequencies, and paradoxically increases sensitivity to low spatial frequencies. You stop seeing small stuff, and you can remain unaware of it. The brain will, for a while, substitute made-up stuff to match your expectations. This is what gets fighter pilots killed: they get G-force induced nystagmus, lose acuity needed to read the instruments, and their brain is substituting expected (but incorrect) values for real instrument readings...
The original article in Current Biology (abstract free, rest behind paywall) clearly says that gradients are irrelevant. It's a Lorentz force, for that you simply need a large static field. Moving your head probably exaggerates the effect because there's a mismatch between vestibular input and visual and proprioception inputs. What's important is that for the first time they had clearly shown that it's a Lorentz force, causing a pressure signal to be applied to the cupola in the semicircular canal. Nobody else has conclusively shown that before.
Fluid being ionic is one thing, but there are actually ionic currents, and that's what the dealbreaker. And they must flow perpendicular to the pipe holding the fluid (the semicircular canal). It's an interesting confluence of things.
It's merely a byproduct of how semicircular canals work. We need them, without them our vision would be shot (never mind the balance!). It just so happens that they have ionic currents flowing across the channels. You need several Teslas to show the effect. There's nothing vestigial about it -- there was never a natural magnetic field that strong anywhere near animals with labyrinths in inner ear.
I kindly refer you to Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong.
The subject matter of science, however, does not describe the totality of the human experience.
But it does. We have a faint clue that our brains aren't made out of swiss cheese. The idea that science somehow expects you to use calipers to "measure" beauty is preposterous at best. Science tells us quite well that there are aspects of our brains' functioning that aren't rational. That's fine, and not a reason to deride scientific method. Scientific method as applied to pretty girls isn't about measuring them with calipers. It could be, though, about understanding basic human behavior and knowing how to use it to pick up any girl you want*. Feynman has more to say about that :)
* not that it's always a desirable outcome, for physical beauty isn't end-all-be-all.
I think I agree as to unanswerable questions. My favorite question is about the meaning of { life | suffering | illness | etc. }. I always ask people: does it need to have meaning? What if you knew the answer? Would you be satisfied? Can you think of some potential answers? Do they make you feel any better? I can't wrap my head around people who somehow need to tell themselves "I'm a part of a bigger plan" to feel good. Replace "bigger plan" with "wakalixes" and it doesn't mean any more or less. Gobbledygook...
Agreed. Since the first planes go to ANA (or so it seems), I don't think there'll be a problem with comfort. ANA's economy class, on 747s at least, is like business class on U.S. carriers. I was pretty amazed.
There should be +1 chillingly accurate :)
That's probably true as well. I think, though, that SpaceX's relative success so far has shown that subcontractors are a disease. Boeing would be better off, IMHO, doing the stuff themselves.
+1 Informative. Thanks.
Doing anything strategic in aviation with terrorists in mind is IMHO retarded. I don't think that having reinforced cockpit doors falls anywhere near big-scale strategy.
Boeing has killed a lot of people with stupid design flaws and cost cuttings, most aircraft companies have.
Umm, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence? Or is this trolling?
That's otherwise called engineering. You can cheat on it, but the nature cannot be fooled. Thus they did their homework and it took time. It's hard to predict how long something will take if noone else has ever attempted it before. You can estimate certain things, but ultimately there will be problems that you have to fix.
More fuel? How much alcohol, realistically, can you have in your body? I doubt you can really store even a liter of ethanol. That'd be two liters of vodka. And apart from what's buried deep in your GI tract, the rest of it is too diluted to be much of a concern.
Drinking simply makes you unaware of being on fire for long enough for the wick effect to get things going. I'm sure many elderly people have problems with peripheral sensing of pain, especially if they have circulation problems. They may well be not drunk and still on fire without knowing. My 30 y.o. friend had a (recently fixed) Chiari malformation, causing her to lose all peripheral sense of touch and pain, even deep pain. She looked like her hubby was beating and scalding her, even though it was of her own doing (no effing pun intended, please).
There's no "magnetic crap". If it can access a USB drive, it's only via BIOS, and then it's as good as anything else, more-or-less. Only older versions talk to drive hardware directly. Sure, it can't recover non-FAT floppies. Tough luck. It's not hard to reimplement the statistical recovery process it uses, it's no magic. It's as much as you can do without custom hardware.
I don't think it was designed to do anything bad like you imply. It will only relocate data (in v5 and earlier) in FAT partitions anyway. If it's not a FAT disk, it won't do any relocating recovery.
v6 uses BIOS and only bios. v5 uses BIOS only if it can't talk to something via IDE/ATAPI or through the floppy controller. v5 does recognize a limited number of hard drives and reconfigures them into a "diagnostic" mode where built-in data recovery is disabled, and the software has better access to raw sector data.
That's fine -- AFTER it recovers. There's nothing wrong with that. A successful recovery means that the CRC had matched. Of course you can get a match on wrong data, but there's a way of running spinrite without having it write anything. It'll simply report what was readable/recoverable and what wasn't.
The port seems to be locally stiffer than the case. All it would do, I guess, is crack the case.
I think to get it to do a good job on floppies, you need version 4 or 5. Those still talk directly to the floppy controller. The recovery is definitely non-destructive. It simply keeps reading the same sector after approaching it by seeking from different sides IIRC. The data that's read is passed through a statistical model that tries to predict the original values of bytes. It does work sometimes, and would be worth a try. Versions 6 and onwards don't talk directly to hardware and are pretty useless methinks.