Much as I dislike PETA's immature, attention-whoring, hardline, hypocritical, etc. etc. stance in general, the "sea kittens" thing at least (somewhat) raises the issue about people's double standards when it comes to animal cruelty, etc.
Plus, "sea kittens" is a FAR MORE educational name.
Let me give you an example.
Q: What does the pussy smell like? A: A sea kitten.
See? You can't put a price on that kind of education.
The word you are looking for is "able", not "supposed".
Because, letters in the alphabet are "a code" but we don't refer to them as "codes for wording". So, everyone who is familiar with "the code" used IS supposed to understand it. Regardless if we are talking alphabet, kanji, C++ or Python.
Unless it is poorly coded and/or a mess - which is a part of the reason why the OP questions the current practice.
To signal you things like: "now would be a good time to eat a potassium-rich food item", "you're just within the legal limit on your blood alcohol", etc. etc. etc. besides watch your glucose level. If application for diabetics drives this forward: good for you.
"I see that you are eating pancakes. Click here to download full version of pancakes." "CONGRATULATION! YOU HAVE JUST WON 100.000 pancakes! CLICK HERE TO CLAIM YOUR PRIZE!" "You like pancakes? Meet girls who like pancakes tonight." * [TRUSTED DOWNLOAD] pancakes * pancakes.full.rar * pancakes [FULL VERSION] * pancakes [HIGH SPEED]
How do you get it there in the first place? Drop them out of an airplane as a preventive measure, say... 15 of those per square kilometer?
This is utter nonsense. If you can get a doctor to the mother, you can move the baby as well. No need for backpacking. Unless the doctor has to get there over the remnants of a suspension bridge. And in that case, he/she is not going back the same way with the incubator on the back anyway.
Oh... wait... this should be used if the doctor suspects, based on the ultrasound, that the baby will be born prematurely? Well then... how about keeping the mother in the bloody hospital?
Also, FFS take a look at the photos. That thing looks like it was built by men who have never in their lives held a healthy baby in their hands - let alone a sick one. (And the "inventors", if that's them fit that description perfectly.) An incubator that would hold a barely breathing baby in upright position, fastened across the chest with straps? Seriously?
Why not just pack the brat in a plastic bag and then jog merrily to the hospital while swinging the bag around? I mean... if they really want to put additional strain on the barely living kid.
Contrary to what you may have seen on TV or in comics - you can't just make an exoskeleton power armor in a cave with a box of scraps. Or a nuke for that matter.
On the other hand, portable nukes have been around since the '50s. And it is not really the radiation that is the problem - it's the low yield. As an attack device it is practically useless unless you are aiming it at very large numbers of humans in the field somewhere. Its only advantage over conventional explosives is that it is smaller (you would need a truckload of TNT for the same effect) and it irradiates the area.
And you can get the same effect with some fertilizer and a much smaller quantity of literally ANY radioactive material by making a "dirty bomb".
I do believe that Ancient_Hacker (751168) was referring to all those "countermeasures" that you and he have mentioned, in comparison to a missile defense shield all around the border. Now that would cost a pretty penny.
You just did it yourself. Cause, one man's "private citizen" is other man's "terrorist insurgent". If I recall correctly, there were even couple of wars started as an answer to "terrorist acts" by "private citizens". World War I being maybe the most famous. So far.
Or do you really think that there exists such an action that is illegal for a state to commit against another state, but completely legal for their citizens? Particularly regarding something that can be classified as a biological weapon.
I think it's just freakin' adorable when people call themselves "software engineers".
Said a man using a computer.. and the Internet... and about couple of thousand different interconnecting pieces of software created by thousands of individuals around the world.
Yeah, you are right. Sometimes it more like black magic. While herding cats. And playing a piano.
Ummm... no... THAT would be something like a subspecies. "Pencilware" or "pixelware"... You know... not much difference what you draw and with what you draw. That airplane may just as well have been a dragon - as it would be completely imaginary.
I'm am talking about something that is akin to all those Enterprise or DS9 plans - only with more numbers. You know... something designed according to rules but lacking a key component (or two, or dozen...) to actually work. Like "warp core" or "some propulsion system technology [that] still needs to be explored".
-70% less fuel? How much of that is aerodynamic savings and how much of that is engine efficiency savings? 5% here, 5% there...
the design mitigates some of the drawbacks of the BLI technique by traveling about 10 percent slower than a 737. To further reduce the drag and amount of fuel that the plane burns, the D series features longer, skinnier wings and a smaller tail. Independently, each tweak might not amount to much, but the "little 5-percent changes add up to one big change," Drela said.
-Did they do any wind tunnel testing of their model? How close were their CFD and tunnel test results? No actual model. Just the ones in the computer.
They have proposed evaluating the interactions between the propulsion system and the new aircraft using a large-scale NASA wind tunnel. Even if the MIT designs are not chosen for the second phase, the researchers hope to continue to develop them, including testing smaller models at MIT's Wright Brothers' Wind Tunnel and collaborating with manufacturers to explore how to make the concepts a reality.
-Are they using engines based closely off existing ones, or are they projecting fuel savings 25 years into the future (the 2035 time frame from the article)? Mostly projection and wishful thinking. Right now, they could MAYBE do 50%.
Not only does the D series meet NASA's long-term fuel burn, emissions reduction and runway length objectives, but it could also offer large benefits in the near future because the MIT team designed two versions: a higher technology version with 70 percent fuel-burn reduction, and a version that could be built with conventional aluminum and current jet technology that would burn 50 percent less fuel and might be more attractive as a lower risk, near-term alternative. . The researchers acknowledge that some propulsion system technology still needs to be explored.
-What sort of structural weight-saving advances are they assuming, or projecting from? Only mention of weight-saving is regarding the H-series that should replace 777s.
The MIT team designed a triangular-shaped hybrid wing body aircraft that blends a wider fuselage with the wings for improved aerodyamics. The large center body creates a forward lift that eliminates the need for a tail to balance the aircraft.
-So they made the tail smaller, what makes up for the reduction in control authority there?
The researchers acknowledge that some propulsion system technology still needs to be explored.
-Plus other more detailed questions based on the answers to those questions.
The researchers acknowledge that some propulsion system technology still needs to be explored.
Cause, if they are claiming it will have 70% reduction and in reality they can only MAYBE vouch for about 50%, who knows what else have they simply made up or jerry-rigged.
From TFA:
a higher technology version with 70 percent fuel-burn reduction, and a version that could be built with conventional aluminum and current jet technology that would burn 50 percent less fuel and might be more attractive as a lower risk, near-term alternative.
Also:
The researchers acknowledge that some propulsion system technology still needs to be explored.
It would actually have to fly at about 10 percent slower than a 737. (Cruising speed: Next Generation 737-800 - Mach 0.785 (514 mph, 828 km/h). And the reduction in speed is a must, cause it's there to prevent the engines falling off.
The engineers conceived of the D series by reconfiguring the tube-and-wing structure. Instead of using a single fuselage cylinder, they used two partial cylinders placed side by side to create a wider structure whose cross-section resembles two soap bubbles joined together. They also moved the engines from the usual wing-mounted locations to the rear of the fuselage. Unlike the engines on most transport aircraft that take in the high-speed, undisturbed air flow, the D-series engines take in slower moving air that is present in the wake of the fuselage. Known as the Boundary Layer Ingestion (BLI), this technique allows the engines to use less fuel for the same amount of thrust, although the design has several practical drawbacks, such as creating more engine stress.
According to Mark Drela, the Terry L. Kohler Professor of Fluid Dynamics and lead designer of the D series, the design mitigates some of the drawbacks of the BLI technique by traveling about 10 percent slower than a 737.
Also, like all inhabitat.com articles, there is a catch. Besides the whole thing existing only in a computer somewhere - as usual. It isn't really 70% reduction. The "higher technology version" will have that level of reduction. As soon as the technology or money to build it becomes available. "Conventional" version would have a reduction of about 50%.
Not only does the D series meet NASA's long-term fuel burn, emissions reduction and runway length objectives, but it could also offer large benefits in the near future because the MIT team designed two versions: a higher technology version with 70 percent fuel-burn reduction, and a version that could be built with conventional aluminum and current jet technology that would burn 50 percent less fuel and might be more attractive as a lower risk, near-term alternative.
Oh, and I just love the "we don't actually have all the technology"-part.
The MIT team expects to hear from NASA within the next several months about whether it has been selected for the second phase of the program, which will provide additional funds to one or two of the subsonic teams in 2011 to research and develop the technologies identified during the first phase. The researchers acknowledge that some propulsion system technology still needs to be explored.
We really need a new term for all these "we have a pretty picture and some untested numbers we came up with" articles. Vaporware doesn't really cut it anymore. Something like renderware, or CGIware, or imagineware...
An allergic human stung by the giant hornet may die from an allergic reaction to the venom, but the venom contains a neurotoxin called mandaratoxin[6] which can be lethal even to people who are not allergic if the dose is sufficient. Each year in Japan, the human death toll caused by Asian giant hornet stings exceeds that of all other venomous and non-venomous wild animals combined, including wild bears and venomous snakes.
A few interesting notes on Vespa mandarinia's venom and stinger:
* The venom contains at least eight distinct chemicals, some of which damage tissue, some of which cause pain, and at least one which has an odor that attracts more hornets to the victim.
* The venom contains 5% acetylcholine, a greater concentration than is present in bee or other wasp venoms. Acetylcholine stimulates the pain nerve fibers, intensifying the pain of the sting.
* Vespa mandarinia uses its large crushing mandibles, rather than its sting, to kill prey.
* The venom of the Asian giant hornet is not as toxic as some other bees or wasps, and is less toxic than honey-bee venom, but because of the large quantity of venom, this species has one of the greatest toxicities per sting.
* The enzyme in the venom is so strong that it can dissolve human tissue. On some occasions, the sting may be compared to the effects of a spider bite.[citation needed]
* Like all hornets, V. mandarinia has a barbless stinger, allowing it to sting repeatedly
On a positive side, you do get a warning from all that buzzing they do. Also, they are not nocturnal AND like all wasps mostly die off during the winter months.
What the fuck are you rambling about? Are you actually equalizing legal police actions in western Europe during civil riots with homophobic fascists' organized attacks on gay-pride marches and examples of Serbian war crimes in Bosnia? As a reply to a comment disagreeing with OP's (somewhat delusional) idea of the stance Europeans have regarding USian prison and legal system?
What the fuck have you been smoking and why aren't you sharing with everyone?
I'd gladly hand control of my car over to a computer if it would get me to work in half the time, and let me do other things while I "drive". And this will someday happen. Where I live, traffic slows down because of a bend in the highway. Rubbernecking causes massive jams and delays. There has to be a better way.
Hmm... sounds to me as if you are describing some kind of a automated, efficient, secure and cheap mode of transportation that wouldn't depend on other drivers' actions or road conditions. And at the same time, relieve you and everyone else of the duties as a driver. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but something like that is impossible. Not only would you have to create specialized vehicles (from scratch), you would also have to create specialized roads made out of something a lot more durable so that they could facilitate speeds and control necessary. Perhaps even putting such roads and vehicles on a completely different plane from the roads currently used?
No, no, no... you are dreaming my friend. Something like that will never happen. A fine dream though, but you could have just as well wished for a teleport like the ones on Star Trek.
There are laws against using genetic information for hiring/firing decisions and health insurance purposes.
You don't fire someone because he/she is likely to get sick, is homosexual or a lower race. You find something else to fire them for. See this instructional video.
The Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BWC) of 1972 does not specifically mention insect vectors in its text.[26] The language of the treaty, however, does cover vectors.[26] Article I bans, "Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict."[27][26] It would appear, due to the text of the BWC, that insect vectors as an aspect of entomological warfare are covered and outlawed by the Convention.[28] The issue is less clear when warfare with uninfected insects against crops is considered.[26]
Slashdot Mirror
Much as I dislike PETA's immature, attention-whoring, hardline, hypocritical, etc. etc. stance in general, the "sea kittens" thing at least (somewhat) raises the issue about people's double standards when it comes to animal cruelty, etc.
Plus, "sea kittens" is a FAR MORE educational name.
Let me give you an example.
Q: What does the pussy smell like?
A: A sea kitten.
See? You can't put a price on that kind of education.
The word you are looking for is "able", not "supposed".
Because, letters in the alphabet are "a code" but we don't refer to them as "codes for wording".
So, everyone who is familiar with "the code" used IS supposed to understand it. Regardless if we are talking alphabet, kanji, C++ or Python.
Unless it is poorly coded and/or a mess - which is a part of the reason why the OP questions the current practice.
To signal you things like: "now would be a good time to eat a potassium-rich food item", "you're just within the legal limit on your blood alcohol", etc. etc. etc. besides watch your glucose level. If application for diabetics drives this forward: good for you.
How do you get it there in the first place?
Drop them out of an airplane as a preventive measure, say... 15 of those per square kilometer?
This is utter nonsense.
If you can get a doctor to the mother, you can move the baby as well. No need for backpacking.
Unless the doctor has to get there over the remnants of a suspension bridge. And in that case, he/she is not going back the same way with the incubator on the back anyway.
Oh... wait... this should be used if the doctor suspects, based on the ultrasound, that the baby will be born prematurely?
Well then... how about keeping the mother in the bloody hospital?
Also, FFS take a look at the photos.
That thing looks like it was built by men who have never in their lives held a healthy baby in their hands - let alone a sick one. (And the "inventors", if that's them fit that description perfectly.)
An incubator that would hold a barely breathing baby in upright position, fastened across the chest with straps? Seriously?
Why not just pack the brat in a plastic bag and then jog merrily to the hospital while swinging the bag around?
I mean... if they really want to put additional strain on the barely living kid.
Contrary to what you may have seen on TV or in comics - you can't just make an exoskeleton power armor in a cave with a box of scraps.
Or a nuke for that matter.
On the other hand, portable nukes have been around since the '50s.
And it is not really the radiation that is the problem - it's the low yield.
As an attack device it is practically useless unless you are aiming it at very large numbers of humans in the field somewhere.
Its only advantage over conventional explosives is that it is smaller (you would need a truckload of TNT for the same effect) and it irradiates the area.
And you can get the same effect with some fertilizer and a much smaller quantity of literally ANY radioactive material by making a "dirty bomb".
I do believe that Ancient_Hacker (751168) was referring to all those "countermeasures" that you and he have mentioned, in comparison to a missile defense shield all around the border.
Now that would cost a pretty penny.
You just did it yourself.
Cause, one man's "private citizen" is other man's "terrorist insurgent".
If I recall correctly, there were even couple of wars started as an answer to "terrorist acts" by "private citizens".
World War I being maybe the most famous. So far.
Or do you really think that there exists such an action that is illegal for a state to commit against another state, but completely legal for their citizens?
Particularly regarding something that can be classified as a biological weapon.
I think it's just freakin' adorable when people call themselves "software engineers".
Said a man using a computer.. and the Internet... and about couple of thousand different interconnecting pieces of software created by thousands of individuals around the world.
Yeah, you are right.
Sometimes it more like black magic. While herding cats. And playing a piano.
Ummm... no... THAT would be something like a subspecies. "Pencilware" or "pixelware"...
You know... not much difference what you draw and with what you draw. That airplane may just as well have been a dragon - as it would be completely imaginary.
I'm am talking about something that is akin to all those Enterprise or DS9 plans - only with more numbers.
You know... something designed according to rules but lacking a key component (or two, or dozen...) to actually work.
Like "warp core" or "some propulsion system technology [that] still needs to be explored".
-70% less fuel? How much of that is aerodynamic savings and how much of that is engine efficiency savings?
5% here, 5% there...
the design mitigates some of the drawbacks of the BLI technique by traveling about 10 percent slower than a 737. To further reduce the drag and amount of fuel that the plane burns, the D series features longer, skinnier wings and a smaller tail. Independently, each tweak might not amount to much, but the "little 5-percent changes add up to one big change," Drela said.
-Did they do any wind tunnel testing of their model? How close were their CFD and tunnel test results?
No actual model. Just the ones in the computer.
They have proposed evaluating the interactions between the propulsion system and the new aircraft using a large-scale NASA wind tunnel. Even if the MIT designs are not chosen for the second phase, the researchers hope to continue to develop them, including testing smaller models at MIT's Wright Brothers' Wind Tunnel and collaborating with manufacturers to explore how to make the concepts a reality.
-Are they using engines based closely off existing ones, or are they projecting fuel savings 25 years into the future (the 2035 time frame from the article)?
Mostly projection and wishful thinking. Right now, they could MAYBE do 50%.
Not only does the D series meet NASA's long-term fuel burn, emissions reduction and runway length objectives, but it could also offer large benefits in the near future because the MIT team designed two versions: a higher technology version with 70 percent fuel-burn reduction, and a version that could be built with conventional aluminum and current jet technology that would burn 50 percent less fuel and might be more attractive as a lower risk, near-term alternative.
.
The researchers acknowledge that some propulsion system technology still needs to be explored.
-What sort of structural weight-saving advances are they assuming, or projecting from?
Only mention of weight-saving is regarding the H-series that should replace 777s.
The MIT team designed a triangular-shaped hybrid wing body aircraft that blends a wider fuselage with the wings for improved aerodyamics. The large center body creates a forward lift that eliminates the need for a tail to balance the aircraft.
-So they made the tail smaller, what makes up for the reduction in control authority there?
The researchers acknowledge that some propulsion system technology still needs to be explored.
-Plus other more detailed questions based on the answers to those questions.
The researchers acknowledge that some propulsion system technology still needs to be explored.
Cause, if they are claiming it will have 70% reduction and in reality they can only MAYBE vouch for about 50%, who knows what else have they simply made up or jerry-rigged.
From TFA:
a higher technology version with 70 percent fuel-burn reduction, and a version that could be built with conventional aluminum and current jet technology that would burn 50 percent less fuel and might be more attractive as a lower risk, near-term alternative.
Also:
The researchers acknowledge that some propulsion system technology still needs to be explored.
Imagination and pixie dust. That is what makes them so light and durable.
From TFA:
The researchers acknowledge that some propulsion system technology still needs to be explored.
That is, if you were saying that it is 10% slower than a 777. (Cruising speed: 0.84 Mach (560 mph, 905 km/h, 490 knots))
It would actually have to fly at about 10 percent slower than a 737. (Cruising speed: Next Generation 737-800 - Mach 0.785 (514 mph, 828 km/h).
And the reduction in speed is a must, cause it's there to prevent the engines falling off.
The engineers conceived of the D series by reconfiguring the tube-and-wing structure. Instead of using a single fuselage cylinder, they used two partial cylinders placed side by side to create a wider structure whose cross-section resembles two soap bubbles joined together.
They also moved the engines from the usual wing-mounted locations to the rear of the fuselage.
Unlike the engines on most transport aircraft that take in the high-speed, undisturbed air flow, the D-series engines take in slower moving air that is present in the wake of the fuselage.
Known as the Boundary Layer Ingestion (BLI), this technique allows the engines to use less fuel for the same amount of thrust, although the design has several practical drawbacks, such as creating more engine stress.
According to Mark Drela, the Terry L. Kohler Professor of Fluid Dynamics and lead designer of the D series, the design mitigates some of the drawbacks of the BLI technique by traveling about 10 percent slower than a 737.
Also, like all inhabitat.com articles, there is a catch. Besides the whole thing existing only in a computer somewhere - as usual.
It isn't really 70% reduction. The "higher technology version" will have that level of reduction. As soon as the technology or money to build it becomes available.
"Conventional" version would have a reduction of about 50%.
Not only does the D series meet NASA's long-term fuel burn, emissions reduction and runway length objectives, but it could also offer large benefits in the near future because the MIT team designed two versions: a higher technology version with 70 percent fuel-burn reduction, and a version that could be built with conventional aluminum and current jet technology that would burn 50 percent less fuel and might be more attractive as a lower risk, near-term alternative.
Oh, and I just love the "we don't actually have all the technology"-part.
The MIT team expects to hear from NASA within the next several months about whether it has been selected for the second phase of the program, which will provide additional funds to one or two of the subsonic teams in 2011 to research and develop the technologies identified during the first phase.
The researchers acknowledge that some propulsion system technology still needs to be explored.
We really need a new term for all these "we have a pretty picture and some untested numbers we came up with" articles. Vaporware doesn't really cut it anymore.
Something like renderware, or CGIware, or imagineware...
That condition that they have is actually called mental retardation.
It's not the size. It's the venom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_giant_hornet
An allergic human stung by the giant hornet may die from an allergic reaction to the venom, but the venom contains a neurotoxin called mandaratoxin[6] which can be lethal even to people who are not allergic if the dose is sufficient. Each year in Japan, the human death toll caused by Asian giant hornet stings exceeds that of all other venomous and non-venomous wild animals combined, including wild bears and venomous snakes.
A few interesting notes on Vespa mandarinia's venom and stinger:
* The venom contains at least eight distinct chemicals, some of which damage tissue, some of which cause pain, and at least one which has an odor that attracts more hornets to the victim.
* The venom contains 5% acetylcholine, a greater concentration than is present in bee or other wasp venoms. Acetylcholine stimulates the pain nerve fibers, intensifying the pain of the sting.
* Vespa mandarinia uses its large crushing mandibles, rather than its sting, to kill prey.
* The venom of the Asian giant hornet is not as toxic as some other bees or wasps, and is less toxic than honey-bee venom, but because of the large quantity of venom, this species has one of the greatest toxicities per sting.
* The enzyme in the venom is so strong that it can dissolve human tissue. On some occasions, the sting may be compared to the effects of a spider bite.[citation needed]
* Like all hornets, V. mandarinia has a barbless stinger, allowing it to sting repeatedly
On a positive side, you do get a warning from all that buzzing they do.
Also, they are not nocturnal AND like all wasps mostly die off during the winter months.
Roaches on the other hand...
It's not a textbook; it assumes you basically know the math
That applies to every math book out there.
...next time someone compares Chinese and other sweatshops with slavery.
Indeed.
http://blog.ju29ro.com/uploaded_images/hooligans-reuters-735894.jpg
http://www.ilga-europe.org/var/ilga/storage/images/europe/photo_galleries/budapest_pride_5_july_2008/budapest_pride_2008_hooligans__5/70616-1-eng-GB/budapest_pride_2008_hooligans.jpg
http://www.awitness.org/eden2003/kosovogenlg.jpg
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/paris_riots_day_9.jpg
What the fuck are you rambling about?
Are you actually equalizing legal police actions in western Europe during civil riots with homophobic fascists' organized attacks on gay-pride marches and examples of Serbian war crimes in Bosnia?
As a reply to a comment disagreeing with OP's (somewhat delusional) idea of the stance Europeans have regarding USian prison and legal system?
What the fuck have you been smoking and why aren't you sharing with everyone?
I'd gladly hand control of my car over to a computer if it would get me to work in half the time, and let me do other things while I "drive". And this will someday happen. Where I live, traffic slows down because of a bend in the highway. Rubbernecking causes massive jams and delays. There has to be a better way.
Hmm... sounds to me as if you are describing some kind of a automated, efficient, secure and cheap mode of transportation that wouldn't depend on other drivers' actions or road conditions. And at the same time, relieve you and everyone else of the duties as a driver.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but something like that is impossible.
Not only would you have to create specialized vehicles (from scratch), you would also have to create specialized roads made out of something a lot more durable so that they could facilitate speeds and control necessary.
Perhaps even putting such roads and vehicles on a completely different plane from the roads currently used?
No, no, no... you are dreaming my friend. Something like that will never happen.
A fine dream though, but you could have just as well wished for a teleport like the ones on Star Trek.
Cause, who wouldn't want to join a "A Road Rapists" social network, right?
There are laws against using genetic information for hiring/firing decisions and health insurance purposes.
You don't fire someone because he/she is likely to get sick, is homosexual or a lower race.
You find something else to fire them for. See this instructional video.
...for kids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomological_warfare#Legal_status
The Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BWC) of 1972 does not specifically mention insect vectors in its text.[26]
The language of the treaty, however, does cover vectors.[26]
Article I bans, "Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict."[27][26]
It would appear, due to the text of the BWC, that insect vectors as an aspect of entomological warfare are covered and outlawed by the Convention.[28]
The issue is less clear when warfare with uninfected insects against crops is considered.[26]
So is the prohibition on divorce, pre-martial sex and birth control...
Well, that sure explains why the Crusades were all the rage back when Popes ruled the world...
We got lucky back then, let's keep pushing our luck.
Until he fukin' WAKES UP!