That was my first thought. Hanging things off your body changes your gait, with that you might have other changes.
Rather than a new test, maybe try one with cops or some other professionals who carry something non-transmitting on their belt. Maybe night watchmen who have a large flashlight on their belt. Compare bone densities between the side with the object and the side without. Heck, something heavier and/or stick out more might show an even greater difference.
If the results make it appear that a wooden nightstick reduces bone density on the hip you wear it on then I think radiation might not be the first thing to blame.
I will make the same comment I make every time we debate technology's superiority to paper:
I cannot remember the last time my map crashed. It may be inaccurate (but so may GPS), it may be out of date (but so may GPS), it may not be intuitive (but so may GPS). But when I turn too fast and pull the plug out of the lighter socket, my paper map will still work. When some jerk is driving next to me with non-FCC licensed equipment drowning out the GPS band, my paper map will still work. It doesn't call out turns a mile ahead, it doesn't show up-to-the-thirty-minutes-ago traffic, all it does is show me where I am and I can use my brain to figure out where I'm going.
A GPS is superior to a map but does not replace it, and becoming reliant on a GPS to the point where I do not consult or bring a paper map is foolhardy.
It's obvious that you're part of the group who incorrectly thinks GPS is that magic box which tells you were to aim your car. If you'd read ( and understood ) the article you might have seen this one sentence:
In the U.K., on top of satellite navigation, GNSS is used for data networks, financial systems, shipping and air transport, agriculture, railways and emergency services.
The biggest problem if GPS were disrupted would *not* be hoards of tourists stopping to ask for directions.
Not driven by wheels: check Touching the ground at all times: check Railed vehicles can be interesting. And since they've already gone faster this attempt is all about staying on the ground.
Mach 8.5 record for unmanned. Only 630-something mph manned, but with an open cockpit!
If it didn't involve a trip to the hospital you can bet it will be employed much more often. In the past I'm sure there were times the suspicion wasn't great enough for the hassle of transporting to the hospital. Now that it's easier the # of scans will go way up.
Would the people operating be trained medical professionals?
TFA mentions destruction of the results. Heck, if I just had my lifetime limit of full body scans reduced by 1 I'd demand a copy. Why should I have to endure, and pay for, another one after this at a visit to the doctor. Like having access to your medical records or FBI file, I'd want a copy of every intrusive scan they did of my body, on the spot. They're free to discard their copy, but I want mine.
I tried reading the article, the screwed up page with all it's toolbars, ads and such kept refreshing after a few seconds and jumping to the top of the page. I was interested enough to go to the printer-friendly link an be able to finish the article.
It's unfortunate that the article and summary talk about "inaccurate GPS" while giving examples of inaccurate or for the most part imprecise databases. It sounded like someone getting lost and blaming the compass when it was the tourist map from the gift shop that was at fault.
Just checked to make sure, the 8 year old Garmin in my car has the option "avoid unpaved roads" as I don't have a 4x4 I have that option checked. If I wanted to go 4-wheeling I guess I could let it route me on those.
Idiots who drive for miles in the desert on a gravel road when they are ill-prepared for it are no different than the ones who drive off the pier when their Nav unit was trying to lead them to the ferry. There's always going to be idiots, now they're just ganging up to blame their gadget for their problems.
I was making a comparison to discussions about intrusive advertising both times I suggested obfuscating company product names. The whole purpose behind that suggestion was to limit the ability to search for them, to limit the effectiveness of the annoying advertising or product placement. So you got that part right, you just missed the point.
You can mention the product or site and still obfuscate the name. You can keep from posting links to the seller's web site if you don't want to add to their business. Also I was referring to product placement comments not seller rating sites. ( You omitted that when quoting me to attempt to make some sort of argument )
"simply rank by number of mentions" is your clueless comment. Adding "simply" to what I wrote changes it to nonsense. More mentions in a page makes that page more relevant to a search.
If the seller is violating laws or regulations as it appears this one is, then the appropriate authorities need to do their job. It's not Google's job, which it what I also wrote.
Google will block links to sites with malware, but if the site is perfectly fine, only the guy who owns it is an asshole, how is that Google's problem? There's no harm in viewing the site, only if you have the misfortune to do business with them. Should they also remove all linkage to fake diet pills, magnetic bracelets and good luck charms? If they start doing that, and a site does show up in a Google search should the dimwitted web surfer assume it's passed the Google seal of approval? If Google claims to filter out crooks does the dimwitted surfer have a claim against Google if they get ripped off from a vendor they found via a Google search?
Reading the article I had to shake my head at the complaints that "Google should do something". Do they think the phone book people should boot him out or circle his name in red too?
I've seen people complain in online forums about ads or intrusive product placement in TV shows and movies. And what do they do? They mention the product or company 3-4 times in their rant. On threads where I've commented I've tried to encourage people not to name the specific product or company in their rant, but too many clueless people out there. You hate the placement but remember it well enough to bitch about it online. Advertiser searches for online comments and finds many, so the campaign was successful.
Heck, the Times article just boosted the guy's profile even more! There wasn't just one mention of the company, but many, increasing the rank. Of course the company name is still likely to just show up in a search for the company not the brand names.
So the guy is an ass, but all the clueless people who want to blame someone else ( Google ) and not do research on a company but just buy whatever is claimed to be the cheapest. They may not be getting what they deserve, but they did contribute to their problems by their lack of due diligence. "Too good to be true" is still a true statement. If you find something online where everyone has it for about the same price but someone magically has it much lower you're asking for trouble. That's when you really need to check on the reputation of the seller.
What's new isn't a phased array antenna for satellite TV, you can get them now, though they might cost several thousand dollars vs less than $100 for the small dish.
The Gizmag article mentions the new chip being cheaper and lower power as opposed to what is currently used. Besides being "flat" and sticking out a phased array satellite TV antenna would be easier to install as it could be aimed electronically rather than physically pointing the antenna. It would still need to be pointed in the general direction, but would require less fiddling with.
Thrusting is right. ( Though I usually refer to 3-D as "throwing shit at your face")
You can spot a commercial for almost every 3-D movie right away, even watching in 2D with no foreknowledge. You'll see spears, birds, balls anything that moves rapidly moving towards you, stopping just short of hitting the screen.
As with B&W movies, or even silent films, that survive and entertain today, it's about the content, not the technology. New features can possibly enhance the experience, but a crap show is a crap show, regardless if it's in HD, surround sound and 3-D.
I was very happy to be able to make a reservation at a place that unfortunately has a flash-only web site. My Nexus One phone could do it where in the past I had to wait till I got to a PC to use their site ( or forget to as sometimes happens )
Many of the big video sites have alternatives for non-flash platforms, but there's still a lot of web sites that are sticking with flash only. Some are less likely to change this if they created an iPhone app for access, leaving any non-Apple device stuck with their bloated flash site.
My personal priorities are for flash only web sites to work with video and flash games much lower in importance.
I felt really dumb when I saw this post, so I looked some more. The posting on YouTube was from user "NEWS9OklahomaCity" which looked to be the official place for the TV station. Then I went to the new station's web site and searched for "digital drugs", finding several links: http://www.news9.com/Global/searchresults.asp?vendor=ez&qu=digital+drugs
So it might be that News 9 got taken, but Wired and Slashdot have it right: There are people in OK who think the iPods are going to drive their kids to heroin.
What a crappy title. 65 feet ( 20m ) doesn't bar photography "near" a boom, it keeps idiots from bumping up against it. Unless photographers are using 1970 Instamatics, this should provide no obstacle to any serious photographer.
Starbucks: Sluts of the WiFi with Coffee World
on
Starbucks Frees Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 1
First Starbucks was teamed with T-Mobile. You got a relatively easy to find set of [pay] WiFi hotspots around the U.S. that all worked with a single account.
Next Starbucks teamed up with AT&T for limited free WiFi and gave free WiFi to iPhone users. Slow phase-out of T-Mobile from Starbucks.
Now Starbucks is offering unlimited WiFi through Yahoo!. Does this mean the slow phaseout of AT&T from Starbucks?
They did seem to hold on to the pay model for quite a long time. Perhaps they were just waiting for someone else to get in bed with them and foot the bill? My guess is that none of these schemes cost Starbucks anything. More likely they got free business internet access for their shops and perhaps a piece of the profits, if any, from selling the online time. All they had to do was provide the little bit of electricity to run the router.
Google Voice isn't a VOIP service, it's a forwarding / routing service. You might be able to have it route to another service, like Gizmo, but by itself you'd not going to send/receive calls.
Makes a pretty good answering machine though, so you could use to listen to messages and call them back when you're in cell coverage, but that's not quite the same.
Geek that I am, I tried to observe the polarization in the glasses while waiting for Avatar to start. Not noticing anything I used my phone and looked up Dolby 3D ( which was used in this theater ) and found it doesn't use polarized lenses, but different color filters.
Unlike the old cereal box red/blue glasses though, they block part of what we see as a particular color, so we're still seeing some of each of the blocked colors in each eye, just not the full frequency range. Dichroic filters are incorporated into the lenses to pass/reflect the appropriate frequencies.
Slashdot Mirror
That was my first thought. Hanging things off your body changes your gait, with that you might have other changes.
Rather than a new test, maybe try one with cops or some other professionals who carry something non-transmitting on their belt. Maybe night watchmen who have a large flashlight on their belt. Compare bone densities between the side with the object and the side without. Heck, something heavier and/or stick out more might show an even greater difference.
If the results make it appear that a wooden nightstick reduces bone density on the hip you wear it on then I think radiation might not be the first thing to blame.
I will make the same comment I make every time we debate technology's superiority to paper:
I cannot remember the last time my map crashed. It may be inaccurate (but so may GPS), it may be out of date (but so may GPS), it may not be intuitive (but so may GPS). But when I turn too fast and pull the plug out of the lighter socket, my paper map will still work. When some jerk is driving next to me with non-FCC licensed equipment drowning out the GPS band, my paper map will still work. It doesn't call out turns a mile ahead, it doesn't show up-to-the-thirty-minutes-ago traffic, all it does is show me where I am and I can use my brain to figure out where I'm going.
A GPS is superior to a map but does not replace it, and becoming reliant on a GPS to the point where I do not consult or bring a paper map is foolhardy.
It's obvious that you're part of the group who incorrectly thinks GPS is that magic box which tells you were to aim your car. If you'd read ( and understood ) the article you might have seen this one sentence:
In the U.K., on top of satellite navigation, GNSS is used for data networks, financial systems, shipping and air transport, agriculture, railways and emergency services.
The biggest problem if GPS were disrupted would *not* be hoards of tourists stopping to ask for directions.
If you're into believing Wikpedia: 470.444
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record
or non-Wikipedia:
http://www.teamvesco.com/
Not driven by wheels: check
Touching the ground at all times: check
Railed vehicles can be interesting. And since they've already gone faster this attempt is all about staying on the ground.
Mach 8.5 record for unmanned.
Only 630-something mph manned, but with an open cockpit!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record_for_railed_vehicles#Rocket_sled
The battery life is real, and it's spectacular.
I see what you did there.
If it didn't involve a trip to the hospital you can bet it will be employed much more often. In the past I'm sure there were times the suspicion wasn't great enough for the hassle of transporting to the hospital. Now that it's easier the # of scans will go way up.
Would the people operating be trained medical professionals?
TFA mentions destruction of the results. Heck, if I just had my lifetime limit of full body scans reduced by 1 I'd demand a copy. Why should I have to endure, and pay for, another one after this at a visit to the doctor. Like having access to your medical records or FBI file, I'd want a copy of every intrusive scan they did of my body, on the spot. They're free to discard their copy, but I want mine.
I tried reading the article, the screwed up page with all it's toolbars, ads and such kept refreshing after a few seconds and jumping to the top of the page. I was interested enough to go to the printer-friendly link an be able to finish the article.
It's unfortunate that the article and summary talk about "inaccurate GPS" while giving examples of inaccurate or for the most part imprecise databases. It sounded like someone getting lost and blaming the compass when it was the tourist map from the gift shop that was at fault.
Just checked to make sure, the 8 year old Garmin in my car has the option "avoid unpaved roads" as I don't have a 4x4 I have that option checked. If I wanted to go 4-wheeling I guess I could let it route me on those.
Idiots who drive for miles in the desert on a gravel road when they are ill-prepared for it are no different than the ones who drive off the pier when their Nav unit was trying to lead them to the ferry. There's always going to be idiots, now they're just ganging up to blame their gadget for their problems.
I was making a comparison to discussions about intrusive advertising both times I suggested obfuscating company product names. The whole purpose behind that suggestion was to limit the ability to search for them, to limit the effectiveness of the annoying advertising or product placement. So you got that part right, you just missed the point.
Giving you a clue for free:
You can mention the product or site and still obfuscate the name. You can keep from posting links to the seller's web site if you don't want to add to their business. Also I was referring to product placement comments not seller rating sites. ( You omitted that when quoting me to attempt to make some sort of argument )
"simply rank by number of mentions" is your clueless comment. Adding "simply" to what I wrote changes it to nonsense. More mentions in a page makes that page more relevant to a search.
If the seller is violating laws or regulations as it appears this one is, then the appropriate authorities need to do their job. It's not Google's job, which it what I also wrote.
Google will block links to sites with malware, but if the site is perfectly fine, only the guy who owns it is an asshole, how is that Google's problem? There's no harm in viewing the site, only if you have the misfortune to do business with them. Should they also remove all linkage to fake diet pills, magnetic bracelets and good luck charms? If they start doing that, and a site does show up in a Google search should the dimwitted web surfer assume it's passed the Google seal of approval? If Google claims to filter out crooks does the dimwitted surfer have a claim against Google if they get ripped off from a vendor they found via a Google search?
Reading the article I had to shake my head at the complaints that "Google should do something". Do they think the phone book people should boot him out or circle his name in red too?
I've seen people complain in online forums about ads or intrusive product placement in TV shows and movies. And what do they do? They mention the product or company 3-4 times in their rant. On threads where I've commented I've tried to encourage people not to name the specific product or company in their rant, but too many clueless people out there. You hate the placement but remember it well enough to bitch about it online. Advertiser searches for online comments and finds many, so the campaign was successful.
Heck, the Times article just boosted the guy's profile even more! There wasn't just one mention of the company, but many, increasing the rank. Of course the company name is still likely to just show up in a search for the company not the brand names.
So the guy is an ass, but all the clueless people who want to blame someone else ( Google ) and not do research on a company but just buy whatever is claimed to be the cheapest. They may not be getting what they deserve, but they did contribute to their problems by their lack of due diligence. "Too good to be true" is still a true statement. If you find something online where everyone has it for about the same price but someone magically has it much lower you're asking for trouble. That's when you really need to check on the reputation of the seller.
What's new isn't a phased array antenna for satellite TV, you can get them now, though they might cost several thousand dollars vs less than $100 for the small dish.
The Gizmag article mentions the new chip being cheaper and lower power as opposed to what is currently used. Besides being "flat" and sticking out a phased array satellite TV antenna would be easier to install as it could be aimed electronically rather than physically pointing the antenna. It would still need to be pointed in the general direction, but would require less fiddling with.
The hotel seems to still be under construction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DeathStar2.jpg
Maybe this trend will mean more revenue options for athletes and D-list actors who are off beating their spouses and driving their cars into trees.
The can now be rewarded for their behavior by being paid to not wear Nike or not drive a Mercedes.
Thrusting is right. ( Though I usually refer to 3-D as "throwing shit at your face")
You can spot a commercial for almost every 3-D movie right away, even watching in 2D with no foreknowledge. You'll see spears, birds, balls anything that moves rapidly moving towards you, stopping just short of hitting the screen.
As with B&W movies, or even silent films, that survive and entertain today, it's about the content, not the technology. New features can possibly enhance the experience, but a crap show is a crap show, regardless if it's in HD, surround sound and 3-D.
What's important varies with the person.
I was very happy to be able to make a reservation at a place that unfortunately has a flash-only web site. My Nexus One phone could do it where in the past I had to wait till I got to a PC to use their site ( or forget to as sometimes happens )
Many of the big video sites have alternatives for non-flash platforms, but there's still a lot of web sites that are sticking with flash only. Some are less likely to change this if they created an iPhone app for access, leaving any non-Apple device stuck with their bloated flash site.
My personal priorities are for flash only web sites to work with video and flash games much lower in importance.
That would be Auroral, not Aural
I felt really dumb when I saw this post, so I looked some more. The posting on YouTube was from user "NEWS9OklahomaCity" which looked to be the official place for the TV station. Then I went to the new station's web site and searched for "digital drugs", finding several links:
http://www.news9.com/Global/searchresults.asp?vendor=ez&qu=digital+drugs
So it might be that News 9 got taken, but Wired and Slashdot have it right: There are people in OK who think the iPods are going to drive their kids to heroin.
What a crappy title. 65 feet ( 20m ) doesn't bar photography "near" a boom, it keeps idiots from bumping up against it. Unless photographers are using 1970 Instamatics, this should provide no obstacle to any serious photographer.
First Starbucks was teamed with T-Mobile. You got a relatively easy to find set of [pay] WiFi hotspots around the U.S. that all worked with a single account.
Next Starbucks teamed up with AT&T for limited free WiFi and gave free WiFi to iPhone users. Slow phase-out of T-Mobile from Starbucks.
Now Starbucks is offering unlimited WiFi through Yahoo!. Does this mean the slow phaseout of AT&T from Starbucks?
They did seem to hold on to the pay model for quite a long time. Perhaps they were just waiting for someone else to get in bed with them and foot the bill? My guess is that none of these schemes cost Starbucks anything. More likely they got free business internet access for their shops and perhaps a piece of the profits, if any, from selling the online time. All they had to do was provide the little bit of electricity to run the router.
getting screwed != getting laid
My first thought was: Apple & Microsoft start to team up to combat Google.
Think Russia & U.S. vs. Germany in WWII.
Considering Apple's become more like Big Brother in recent times, why shouldn't they be buddies?
Now if I can just get a ringtone for that...
I don't think so.
Google Voice isn't a VOIP service, it's a forwarding / routing service. You might be able to have it route to another service, like Gizmo, but by itself you'd not going to send/receive calls.
Makes a pretty good answering machine though, so you could use to listen to messages and call them back when you're in cell coverage, but that's not quite the same.
Since I RTFA I know that he used someone else's password.
Geek that I am, I tried to observe the polarization in the glasses while waiting for Avatar to start. Not noticing anything I used my phone and looked up Dolby 3D ( which was used in this theater ) and found it doesn't use polarized lenses, but different color filters.
Unlike the old cereal box red/blue glasses though, they block part of what we see as a particular color, so we're still seeing some of each of the blocked colors in each eye, just not the full frequency range. Dichroic filters are incorporated into the lenses to pass/reflect the appropriate frequencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_3D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infitec