Can anyone tell when the "blinding" incident actually happened? Daily Mail appears to imply the BAE helmet program was de-funded as a result but there's no way the government could move that fast.
To play devil's advocate, is there some aspect of "Immigration Law" that would pertain to a US Citizen crossing the border with information deemed sensitive to national security?
I am a fan of Wyden, and voted for him, but this subject is nonsense. A bunch of ignorant plebes are getting all worked up about drones, but if you say all thr same things in the context of an F-18 doing it they have no problems.
"that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."
How is that different then:
that no American should be killed by a police officer on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.
also:
Paul also said that he was “alarmed” at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes.
why not:
Paul also said that he was “alarmed” at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by Navy Ship strikes.
“Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked.
“Are you going to drop a bunkerbuster bomb on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked.
seriously? It's stupid.
This is about tax votes, avoiding responsibility for they sequestration, and not wanting Brennan.
This has nothing to do with the military attack american on american soil.
But when police shoot people on American soil, they have to claim self-defense since they are not executioners. Armed drones ARE executioners and thus should not be used on American soil. Or am I missing something? Why in the world would we ever want to do this or not be willing to give a simple "no" answer to the question of whether we will?
If you want to turn 40 watts of heat into blue light, I'm figuring that's something like 5000 lumens you're creating according to the luminosity function. That's a conference room projector worth of light. Then you have to figure the laser power required to get that much heat out, which according to the article's 2 percent efficiency estimate would be...a lot. I don't know how "cooling efficiency" is defined.
Ideally you'd move the emission to infrared, but that would be disastrous for your night vision goggles.
You make a good point, since there aren't many reports of long haul truckers causing accidents due to CB use. I would just speculate the key differences are:
1) Truckers are professional drivers with lots of driving experience
2) Truckers log mostly highway miles and spend less time making complicated maneuvers
3) The guy on the other end of the call is also driving
4) Truckers probably don't have to drive as defensively as normal cars since they're hard to fit in someone else's blind spot
If you read their patent # 7227674 it suggests they don't compute the hologram fringes, which is the computationally intensive part. Instead they let the optics do the work and record real, photographic holograms for every frame of video. So it's kind of a step backward in computational complexity compared to other holographic video systems that try to do thousands of FFTs and display the resulting fringe patterns on a super hi-res electronic display.
I think a practical goal would be to find ways for the US government to shift its military-industrial-complex spending away from weapons and war machines and encourage those companies to develop and sell peacetime technologies that will allow them to keep their technological edge. For example, instead of making fighter planes Lockheed could make rockets and space shuttles. Kind of the opposite of car companies being re-purposed to build tanks in WW2.
I just think that the military industrial complex has too much lobbying power to let itself get cut off from government funding. Some might also argue that we need to maintain the capacity to build weapons in case we ever need them in the future. I think it would be great if we could fund companies that take the sharpest minds and put them to work solving challenging problems for the benefit of mankind. And if war does break out we can take the minds off those problems and put them back to work figuring out the highest-tech way to blow people up.
From your linked source, in Bush's last 12 months in office the unemployment rate went from 5.00 to 7.4%. In Obama's first 12 months in office it went from 7.7 to 9.7%. Arguably this shows Obama inheriting a shrinking economy from Bush, but by no means accelerating the decline. I don't know what the "adding jobs" language means but I would argue Obama's term has seen better results (or less-bad results) than Bush's, which began in a boom and ended in a recession.
Use it to charge 30 Palm Pre's simultaneously.
Or vice versa, buy 30 touchstone chargers and use them to cook a nice meal for that special lady in your life.
I'm interested to see how Valve's trademarking of "Dota" ends up impacting Blizzard's SC2 DotA mod. Hopefully Valve's trademark will only cover the spelling with the lower-case 'a'; I would hate to see it causing the mod community to be locked out of using the proper name for it.
The cosmic microwave background is everywhere, at all frequencies. Any signal you send has to be stronger than this.
But wait, if you use spread spectrum signals, you can actually receive a signal with a power spectral density that's lower than this noise floor! So there could be alien signals lurking below the CMB, but we have no chance of finding them without guessing their code. And as the codes get more complex and more efficient, they become more impossible to guess.
(This is not my field, but) I think a good way to state it is that if you are sending a data stream that has any order or predictability to it, you are not using your communication resources most efficiently. Surely the aliens wouldn't have truly optimal efficiency, but as they get smarter they will make it harder and harder for us to find them. (Ha. Maybe the efficiency is a happy side-effect.)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from noise. I remembered hearing this in school so I searched and found this paper.
As I understand SETI has always been searching for narrowband signals in the past. But our technology is moving toward spread spectrum signals for more efficient use of bandwidth, making our transmissions appear more like noise to anyone who doesn't know the encoding scheme. Aliens could be doing/have done the same. So good luck, scientists!
Power lines are 60 Hz AC here in the US, so i imagine your brain (and robins' brains) would just see the average of the magnetic field, which would be zero. I think you're stuck to just seeing the DC magnetic fields.
So the lost signal takes the path Antenna->Human Body->Ground. To model this effect for (ESD evaluation) the test is to touch the contact to a 1.5 kohm resistor in series with a 100pf capacitor to ground. (From http://www.esda.org/documents/FundamentalsPart5.pdf)
This 100pf capacitance is quite a low impedance at 1900 MHz (x=1/2piFC), just -j 0.838 ohms. To increase this impedance, note that capacitors in series decrease the overall capacitance (which increases impedance). So you can create such a capacitor by adding dielectric (any insulator) between the antenna and the hand. The thicker this insulator is the lower the added series capacitance. And the lower the added capacitance, the greater the impedance and the less overall coupling of signal to the human body. The calculation of exactly how much capacitance is created by a layer of clear coat between the metal antenna and the hand is, um, left to the reader.
Also, I believe the antenna is split to two sides because each antenna fulfills a different function in a different RF band. One is 3G and one is wifi. Broadband antennas are difficult, but not impossible to make, so I think this is a case of the keep-it-simple-stupid approach.
I don't. Nobody with any antenna experience would make it so that it could so easily be bridged and artificially lengthened, unless the device were meant for tuning to multiple frequencies.
OK, and would that or would that not be solved by painting over the antenna to add a decent amount of resistance between it and God-knows-what?
Am I right to think that this problem could have been avoided just by adding a layer of black paint over the antenna? Of course, the capacitive coupling of your hand to the antenna would still have an effect as it does in many RF devices, but a thin layer of such insulator would prevent the hand from altering the effective length of the antenna.
I do think Apple deserve credit for finding a place in the phone to include an antenna that I presume to be much bigger than your standard patch antenna. I just wonder if this is a case of form coming before function, with someone making the decision to go with the shiny metal look to appeal to the eye.
And the installer is blind and thus doesn't realize it's a mirror in which you can see the keypad. (I dunno, maybe he thinks it's a disco ball. Analogies are hard.)
It's not a perfect analogy because it's not obvious to many users that someone could be reading their data. Instead imagine they were entering their PIN on an ATM and you say, "Sucker, didn't you see that convex mirror on the ceiling reflecting your keystrokes for the whole room to see?" In this case, Google has a camera trained on the convex mirror...
I think we need more specific consequences. When the IPCC tried to come up with a list of specific consequences, the Doran survey indicates most scientists found at least one to disagree with.
Huh? Where does the Doran survey say that? As far as I can tell, the Doran survey ends with this conclusion:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
Agreeing that too much CO2 is bad is one step, but considering the costs of reducing CO2 (possibly major economic damage) defining the magnitude of CO2's harm is very important. If we're doing it to avert widespread droughts/starvation/wars, cap and trade may be more palatable than if it turns out it's just to protect the habitat of a few species of tropical fish (hyperbole intended).
Sorry I meant to refer to the jamstec survey where most scientists said "at least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence." Thanks to you I looked up the 2007 report they're referring to. It does attempt to describe potential consequences though they are sorted into *medium **high and ***very high confidence of occurrence. So I still think I'm right in saying that that's where the debate exists. We agree that the more CO2 we output the more we raise the global temperature. Debate still seems to be out on what will happen in terms of e.g. crop yields or extinctions. It'd be worth going back to an agrarian lifestyle today to prevent humanity's extinction, is it worth it to prevent flooding for a few million people in 2080? (***very confident on the flooding by the way, scary stuff.) There are a lot of possible courses we could take, and a wide and disagreed-upon assortment of potential consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
The link to the Independent appears broken and all I can find is a story in the Daily Mail which seems to be a bit of a rag: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485533/Technical-fault-left-RAF-pilots-unable-flying-100-million-aircraft.html#comments
Can anyone tell when the "blinding" incident actually happened? Daily Mail appears to imply the BAE helmet program was de-funded as a result but there's no way the government could move that fast.
To play devil's advocate, is there some aspect of "Immigration Law" that would pertain to a US Citizen crossing the border with information deemed sensitive to national security?
I am a fan of Wyden, and voted for him, but this subject is nonsense. A bunch of ignorant plebes are getting all worked up about drones, but if you say all thr same things in the context of an F-18 doing it they have no problems.
"that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court." How is that different then: that no American should be killed by a police officer on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.
also: Paul also said that he was “alarmed” at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes. why not: Paul also said that he was “alarmed” at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by Navy Ship strikes.
“Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked. “Are you going to drop a bunkerbuster bomb on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked.
seriously? It's stupid.
This is about tax votes, avoiding responsibility for they sequestration, and not wanting Brennan. This has nothing to do with the military attack american on american soil.
But when police shoot people on American soil, they have to claim self-defense since they are not executioners. Armed drones ARE executioners and thus should not be used on American soil. Or am I missing something? Why in the world would we ever want to do this or not be willing to give a simple "no" answer to the question of whether we will?
If you want to turn 40 watts of heat into blue light, I'm figuring that's something like 5000 lumens you're creating according to the luminosity function. That's a conference room projector worth of light. Then you have to figure the laser power required to get that much heat out, which according to the article's 2 percent efficiency estimate would be...a lot. I don't know how "cooling efficiency" is defined. Ideally you'd move the emission to infrared, but that would be disastrous for your night vision goggles.
You make a good point, since there aren't many reports of long haul truckers causing accidents due to CB use. I would just speculate the key differences are: 1) Truckers are professional drivers with lots of driving experience 2) Truckers log mostly highway miles and spend less time making complicated maneuvers 3) The guy on the other end of the call is also driving 4) Truckers probably don't have to drive as defensively as normal cars since they're hard to fit in someone else's blind spot
Shoppers could opt out by discreetly stowing their cell phones in the little Santa's North Pole Train as it chugs around the food court all day...
If you read their patent # 7227674 it suggests they don't compute the hologram fringes, which is the computationally intensive part. Instead they let the optics do the work and record real, photographic holograms for every frame of video. So it's kind of a step backward in computational complexity compared to other holographic video systems that try to do thousands of FFTs and display the resulting fringe patterns on a super hi-res electronic display.
I think a practical goal would be to find ways for the US government to shift its military-industrial-complex spending away from weapons and war machines and encourage those companies to develop and sell peacetime technologies that will allow them to keep their technological edge. For example, instead of making fighter planes Lockheed could make rockets and space shuttles. Kind of the opposite of car companies being re-purposed to build tanks in WW2.
I just think that the military industrial complex has too much lobbying power to let itself get cut off from government funding. Some might also argue that we need to maintain the capacity to build weapons in case we ever need them in the future. I think it would be great if we could fund companies that take the sharpest minds and put them to work solving challenging problems for the benefit of mankind. And if war does break out we can take the minds off those problems and put them back to work figuring out the highest-tech way to blow people up.
From your linked source, in Bush's last 12 months in office the unemployment rate went from 5.00 to 7.4%. In Obama's first 12 months in office it went from 7.7 to 9.7%. Arguably this shows Obama inheriting a shrinking economy from Bush, but by no means accelerating the decline. I don't know what the "adding jobs" language means but I would argue Obama's term has seen better results (or less-bad results) than Bush's, which began in a boom and ended in a recession.
Use it to charge 30 Palm Pre's simultaneously. Or vice versa, buy 30 touchstone chargers and use them to cook a nice meal for that special lady in your life.
I'm interested to see how Valve's trademarking of "Dota" ends up impacting Blizzard's SC2 DotA mod. Hopefully Valve's trademark will only cover the spelling with the lower-case 'a'; I would hate to see it causing the mod community to be locked out of using the proper name for it.
Fucking laws, how do they WORK?
The cosmic microwave background is everywhere, at all frequencies. Any signal you send has to be stronger than this. But wait, if you use spread spectrum signals, you can actually receive a signal with a power spectral density that's lower than this noise floor! So there could be alien signals lurking below the CMB, but we have no chance of finding them without guessing their code. And as the codes get more complex and more efficient, they become more impossible to guess.
(This is not my field, but) I think a good way to state it is that if you are sending a data stream that has any order or predictability to it, you are not using your communication resources most efficiently. Surely the aliens wouldn't have truly optimal efficiency, but as they get smarter they will make it harder and harder for us to find them. (Ha. Maybe the efficiency is a happy side-effect.)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from noise. I remembered hearing this in school so I searched and found this paper.
As I understand SETI has always been searching for narrowband signals in the past. But our technology is moving toward spread spectrum signals for more efficient use of bandwidth, making our transmissions appear more like noise to anyone who doesn't know the encoding scheme. Aliens could be doing/have done the same. So good luck, scientists!
Power lines are 60 Hz AC here in the US, so i imagine your brain (and robins' brains) would just see the average of the magnetic field, which would be zero. I think you're stuck to just seeing the DC magnetic fields.
So the lost signal takes the path Antenna->Human Body->Ground. To model this effect for (ESD evaluation) the test is to touch the contact to a 1.5 kohm resistor in series with a 100pf capacitor to ground. (From http://www.esda.org/documents/FundamentalsPart5.pdf)
This 100pf capacitance is quite a low impedance at 1900 MHz (x=1/2piFC), just -j 0.838 ohms. To increase this impedance, note that capacitors in series decrease the overall capacitance (which increases impedance). So you can create such a capacitor by adding dielectric (any insulator) between the antenna and the hand. The thicker this insulator is the lower the added series capacitance. And the lower the added capacitance, the greater the impedance and the less overall coupling of signal to the human body. The calculation of exactly how much capacitance is created by a layer of clear coat between the metal antenna and the hand is, um, left to the reader.
Also, I believe the antenna is split to two sides because each antenna fulfills a different function in a different RF band. One is 3G and one is wifi. Broadband antennas are difficult, but not impossible to make, so I think this is a case of the keep-it-simple-stupid approach.
I don't. Nobody with any antenna experience would make it so that it could so easily be bridged and artificially lengthened, unless the device were meant for tuning to multiple frequencies.
OK, and would that or would that not be solved by painting over the antenna to add a decent amount of resistance between it and God-knows-what?
Am I right to think that this problem could have been avoided just by adding a layer of black paint over the antenna? Of course, the capacitive coupling of your hand to the antenna would still have an effect as it does in many RF devices, but a thin layer of such insulator would prevent the hand from altering the effective length of the antenna. I do think Apple deserve credit for finding a place in the phone to include an antenna that I presume to be much bigger than your standard patch antenna. I just wonder if this is a case of form coming before function, with someone making the decision to go with the shiny metal look to appeal to the eye.
He nailed it.
Assuming the anonymous coward is not a female? Sexist.
This book is by a friend of a friend; I think it tackles a lot of the issues brought up in this thread: Losing Our Cool
And the installer is blind and thus doesn't realize it's a mirror in which you can see the keypad. (I dunno, maybe he thinks it's a disco ball. Analogies are hard.)
It's not a perfect analogy because it's not obvious to many users that someone could be reading their data. Instead imagine they were entering their PIN on an ATM and you say, "Sucker, didn't you see that convex mirror on the ceiling reflecting your keystrokes for the whole room to see?" In this case, Google has a camera trained on the convex mirror...
...cockblock"
Huh? Where does the Doran survey say that? As far as I can tell, the Doran survey ends with this conclusion:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
Feeling lucky?
Sorry I meant to refer to the jamstec survey where most scientists said "at least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence." Thanks to you I looked up the 2007 report they're referring to. It does attempt to describe potential consequences though they are sorted into *medium **high and ***very high confidence of occurrence. So I still think I'm right in saying that that's where the debate exists. We agree that the more CO2 we output the more we raise the global temperature. Debate still seems to be out on what will happen in terms of e.g. crop yields or extinctions. It'd be worth going back to an agrarian lifestyle today to prevent humanity's extinction, is it worth it to prevent flooding for a few million people in 2080? (***very confident on the flooding by the way, scary stuff.) There are a lot of possible courses we could take, and a wide and disagreed-upon assortment of potential consequences.