That was my reaction too, at first, but they'd probably enforce economic sanctions - no more cheap Chinese-made crap exported to the US - before they went to outright war... and then I decided it probably WOULD be the end of the US as we knew it.
And why cant we use really low power Xrays or Gamma rays to do imaging without damaging the itty bitty virii?
You sort of answered your own question, there...
4 possibilities: reflect, refract, transmit, absorb. There's a fundamental difference between a microscope that illuminates the sample from above/beside (you see mostly reflected light) and one that illuminates it from below (you see mostly transmitted light and a little refracted light).
Different stuff reacts differently to different wavelengths, and the "absorb" thing tends to cook the sample. Visible light tends to reflect better. X-rays tend to absorb. That's why when they shoot you with x-rays, they shoot through you... the film grabs what made it through. Very little is reflected (though still enough that the lab tech goes and hides behind a lead wall).
And in general, the more light you use, the better image you get. Using a really low-power light source just means you get a really grainy, lousy picture. You can't turn up the power to get a decent picture or you cook the sample. Hence... it'd be nice if you could use light with a longer wavelength, since less of it will be absorbed.
"Seeing" would seem to imply the photon had "bounced off" of them, though, when in actuality it's more like it's slingshotted around them without actually touching them.
Of course at the atomic level there's truly no difference between the two because, regardless of the size of the object, a photon will almost never actually touch a particle of mass - on the atomic level everything is pretty much just open space filled with electromagnetic fields.
In simple terms, I think they're carefully aligning the incoming photons.
It's like trying to hit a target with a bullet that travels along a sine wave; you have to determine its phase at the point where it hits the target to figure out where it will end up.
"Our work is the first lens that provides a resolution better than 100 nm at visible wavelengths."
Emphasis added. The wavelength of visible light ranges between somewhere around 400-800 nm (round numbers). Apparently they've smashed that limitation rather impressively.
And maybe some things you'd share with the boys but isn't exactly a killer with the opposite sex. And the opposite sex can also be a big bag of complications too.
That actually just caused the thought to occur to me that now I'm going to make "M" and "F" friends lists and sort all my friends into their respective friends list. No idea if I'll ever restrict a post by one of those categories, but it'll be neat to have it there if I want it.
It'd be nice to be able to just use their listed gender to sort them but some people have no gender or the wrong gender listed - for what reasons I can't imagine.
True, however, it could also be argued that they probably didn't become successful and prosper by being so easily influenced that they buy all the crap that advertisers push. If anything, the value of this is more the social network it creates than the advertising potential, in my opinion.
Word-of-mouth advertising is the best kind. It's always ideal when people will actually come looking for your product or service rather than you having to go out and find them.
But if all 22 people got fat then it's perfectly reasonable sample size IF the sample is representative of the population.
FTFY.
22 people would be a horrible sample if you selected them from a group of, say, diabetes patients. So unless we know what sort of people were included in the study, it's perfectly valid to question the conclusion based on the sample size and demographics.
I can hit Ctrl-L with my left hand. I've got a Ctrl key on the right side of the keyboard as well the left
That requires moving your left hand off its natural position. So does F6. Alt-D doesn't.
Ctrl-D is easier in this case because I can use my thumb and any finger from a more natural position without bending it under my finders or changing the angle.
You're supposed to type with your fingers arched and your palms a good inch or so above the keyboard. I find there's plenty of room to tuck my left thumb underneath to hit the Alt key. My hand pivots a little to accommodate the reach, but the fingertips don't have to actually leave the keys they're resting on. And the gap between the space and the Alt key makes it easy to tell when the thumb has reached the key
Also... does Ctrl-D highlight the address bar in Chrome? Because it's the shortcut to bookmark the page in Firefox, IE, and Opera.
Why would you use Ctrl-L, which requires you to use your right hand, when Alt-D is easily typed left-handed? My right hand is often on the mouse, and even if I'm moving it to the keyboard, Alt-D is still quicker.
Founded in 1866, the American University of Beirut bases its educational philosophy, standards, and practices on the American liberal arts model of higher education.... [it] was granted institutional accreditation in June 2004 by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools in the United States... The language of instruction is English (except for courses in the Arabic Department and other language courses).
That, or "Hmm, there's a fair chance during this trip that I simply won't be able to resist raping a cleaning-lady or two. I'd better sow some seeds of reasonable doubt, just in case."
Either way... entirely possible, in theory, but still pretty far-fetched.
It's contradictory in the part where the computer says that the door was never actually shut, and both of their stories include shutting the door at some point.
However, doesn't pretty much every hotel door have the little hinged lock on the inside that physically locks the door so it can only open a few inches? (This kind.) If you flip that over while the door is open and then shut the door on it, the door can't shut all the way. Could that be what happened? It would explain why they both said the door was shut when it really wasn't, although you'd still think they might have noticed that.
He added a clipboard textarea, though you can't use it to paste information in apparently. However if you right-click to paste something into it, you can transfer its contents to the input buffer with this JavaScript:
Slashdot Mirror
That was my reaction too, at first, but they'd probably enforce economic sanctions - no more cheap Chinese-made crap exported to the US - before they went to outright war... and then I decided it probably WOULD be the end of the US as we knew it.
Huh? Which country's government is EA Games?
Yes, only referring to reflection/diffraction/etc.
And why cant we use really low power Xrays or Gamma rays to do imaging without damaging the itty bitty virii?
You sort of answered your own question, there...
4 possibilities: reflect, refract, transmit, absorb. There's a fundamental difference between a microscope that illuminates the sample from above/beside (you see mostly reflected light) and one that illuminates it from below (you see mostly transmitted light and a little refracted light).
Different stuff reacts differently to different wavelengths, and the "absorb" thing tends to cook the sample. Visible light tends to reflect better. X-rays tend to absorb. That's why when they shoot you with x-rays, they shoot through you... the film grabs what made it through. Very little is reflected (though still enough that the lab tech goes and hides behind a lead wall).
And in general, the more light you use, the better image you get. Using a really low-power light source just means you get a really grainy, lousy picture. You can't turn up the power to get a decent picture or you cook the sample. Hence... it'd be nice if you could use light with a longer wavelength, since less of it will be absorbed.
"Seeing" would seem to imply the photon had "bounced off" of them, though, when in actuality it's more like it's slingshotted around them without actually touching them.
Of course at the atomic level there's truly no difference between the two because, regardless of the size of the object, a photon will almost never actually touch a particle of mass - on the atomic level everything is pretty much just open space filled with electromagnetic fields.
It does cause diffraction, and that's the killer; when you enlarge it, you just enlarge the diffraction pattern.
Perhaps, but personally I'd assume it would be more limited by their ability to control the laser with the needed degree of precision.
Grow a lot of them in a crystalline structure and use the ones that work.
In simple terms, I think they're carefully aligning the incoming photons.
It's like trying to hit a target with a bullet that travels along a sine wave; you have to determine its phase at the point where it hits the target to figure out where it will end up.
"Our work is the first lens that provides a resolution better than 100 nm at visible wavelengths."
Emphasis added. The wavelength of visible light ranges between somewhere around 400-800 nm (round numbers). Apparently they've smashed that limitation rather impressively.
And maybe some things you'd share with the boys but isn't exactly a killer with the opposite sex. And the opposite sex can also be a big bag of complications too.
That actually just caused the thought to occur to me that now I'm going to make "M" and "F" friends lists and sort all my friends into their respective friends list. No idea if I'll ever restrict a post by one of those categories, but it'll be neat to have it there if I want it.
It'd be nice to be able to just use their listed gender to sort them but some people have no gender or the wrong gender listed - for what reasons I can't imagine.
In the meantime, have you replaced the entire profile with something off FakeNameGenerator?
True, however, it could also be argued that they probably didn't become successful and prosper by being so easily influenced that they buy all the crap that advertisers push. If anything, the value of this is more the social network it creates than the advertising potential, in my opinion.
Word-of-mouth advertising is the best kind. It's always ideal when people will actually come looking for your product or service rather than you having to go out and find them.
But if all 22 people got fat then it's perfectly reasonable sample size IF the sample is representative of the population.
FTFY.
22 people would be a horrible sample if you selected them from a group of, say, diabetes patients. So unless we know what sort of people were included in the study, it's perfectly valid to question the conclusion based on the sample size and demographics.
Causation
Not the same, etc.
I can hit Ctrl-L with my left hand. I've got a Ctrl key on the right side of the keyboard as well the left
That requires moving your left hand off its natural position. So does F6. Alt-D doesn't.
Ctrl-D is easier in this case because I can use my thumb and any finger from a more natural position without bending it under my finders or changing the angle.
You're supposed to type with your fingers arched and your palms a good inch or so above the keyboard. I find there's plenty of room to tuck my left thumb underneath to hit the Alt key. My hand pivots a little to accommodate the reach, but the fingertips don't have to actually leave the keys they're resting on. And the gap between the space and the Alt key makes it easy to tell when the thumb has reached the key
Also... does Ctrl-D highlight the address bar in Chrome? Because it's the shortcut to bookmark the page in Firefox, IE, and Opera.
Control-L (Windows) ... Works in MSIE too, but without the current page's URL
Try Alt-D.
Why would you use Ctrl-L, which requires you to use your right hand, when Alt-D is easily typed left-handed? My right hand is often on the mouse, and even if I'm moving it to the keyboard, Alt-D is still quicker.
If you need it, you can always hit F11.
Here you go.
Founded in 1866, the American University of Beirut bases its educational philosophy, standards, and practices on the American liberal arts model of higher education. ... [it] was granted institutional accreditation in June 2004 by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools in the United States ... The language of instruction is English (except for courses in the Arabic Department and other language courses).
That, or "Hmm, there's a fair chance during this trip that I simply won't be able to resist raping a cleaning-lady or two. I'd better sow some seeds of reasonable doubt, just in case."
Either way... entirely possible, in theory, but still pretty far-fetched.
It's contradictory in the part where the computer says that the door was never actually shut, and both of their stories include shutting the door at some point.
However, doesn't pretty much every hotel door have the little hinged lock on the inside that physically locks the door so it can only open a few inches? (This kind.) If you flip that over while the door is open and then shut the door on it, the door can't shut all the way. Could that be what happened? It would explain why they both said the door was shut when it really wasn't, although you'd still think they might have noticed that.
Proof or it didn't happen. It's using Javascript data formats that aren't supported in Opera.
He added a clipboard textarea, though you can't use it to paste information in apparently. However if you right-click to paste something into it, you can transfer its contents to the input buffer with this JavaScript:
javascript:var c=document.getElementById("text_clipboard");aa.queue_chars(c.value);void(c.value="");
I'm waiting.
Then you're forgetful in addition to ignorant.
Gold & silver bullion coins from the U.S. Mint are legal tender, contrary to your cock-sureness when you stated your ill-informed / ignorant belief that they aren't.