The article says you can have PIP to use it as a mirror and still watch TV. Also, they are working on a waterproof one for the bathroom.
Re:MOD PARENT UP - Definitions of now
on
Exploding Neutron Star
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I read your other post, and though I find it interesting, I disagree.
Using your "see the sun" example, let's look at two scenarios.
1. It's Friday, August 20, 2004 at 4:30pm and you are watching Oprah. The sun explodes and (for sake of discussion) expands at the speed of light. By 4:38, you're dead.
2. It's Friday, August 20, 2004 at 4:30pm and you are watching Oprah. The sun explodes and (for sake of discussion) expands at the speed of light. At 4:31pm a commercial comes on and you get up to get a bag of Doritos. Fortunately for you, you've recently invented a space travel machine and your Doritos are in another Solar System. You immediately are worm-holed out of your living room. By 4:38, your television is toast, but you are fine.
In both scenarios, the sun explodes at the same time in relation to your existence in the living room. And, in both scenarios, the realization that it has exploded hits your television at the same time. But it one scenario, you escape "in the meantime". Therefore, to the Oprah watcher, the "now" was certainly different in each scenario.
Strange title considering life on Earth is thought to have been borne out of the toughest conditions.
I understand they are just saying "tough", but if life likely arose from similar (harsh) conditions, I don't think it would be that unlikely.
I know this is tongue-in-cheek article, but ...
on
The Science of Love
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'm not sure I'd draw the same conclusions as the author here. They start off by saying that sex will enduce certain chemicals which will in turn help to cause a feeling of lust or love in the voles. Then they go on to say if they inject certain chemicals in voles, it will cause them to "fall in love". But people (believe it or not) often fall in love sometimes without having sex. In other words, their thoughts produce the chemicals, which obviously is opposite of saying the chemicals produce the thoughts. It's a which comes first, the chicken or the egg problem. I think injecting chemicals in people would produce the euphoric state they mention in the article, but there needs to be thought processes along side of that to produce love.
I'm probably missing something here from their logic. Please correct me if so. Thanks.
I was wondering if any Slashdotters new if the muscle and bone loss is only a problem if the astronaut returns to earth, or even if they stay in the low gravity environment.
(On a side note, make sure you check out the caption in the article.)
Thanks for clarifying this. I have had a bad experience with a "company" claiming to be my provider asking me for credit card info over and over again (calling long-distance onto my cell phone), which was not my provider.
I ended up changing my phone # to all 888-888-8888 to rectify, and the calls stopped immediately.
(1) It's not highly debated among scientists. It's hotly debated amoung ideologues. Those who know climatology are pretty clear on what is and is not understood, and the implications thereof.
Global warming due to mans efforts has not been proven mathematically. I realize you may not agree, but it is highly debated among scientists. In fact, Slashdot has posted mathematical proofs and a thread to the contrary.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/0 4/2010235&mode=thread&tid=134
2) On if we make lots of legislation, but on assumptions that prove to be wrong, we're wasting our time: I'd better go cancel my health insurance policy then. Something horribly terrible, with a low probability of occurring, can still be worth avoiding even if it turns out not to happen.
We cannot waste billions of dollars on legislation based on an unproven theory. I agree it would be terrible if we were wrong. Unfortunately, there are many unproven scientific theories out there that many people would love to use as a basis for legislation. There is just too much of it out there. It's known as junk science, and as unpopular that concept is with real scientists, it exists in great quantity. Personal insurance is different in that mathematically it has been shown the probablility of a tragic occurance in a person's life, and insurance rates are computed based on that. Unfortunately, your analogy is a poor one. I do understand your point, though.
They probably don't consider "stressing the difference" important because there is no difference.
There are 2 differences.
One, the difference between proving man-made global warming versus natural global warming is huge. That's because if we assume it's manmade and we make lots of legislation because of it, then we're wasting our time if we're wrong. You make an assumption that is "clearly" true, but it's actually highly debated among scientists and policy makers.
The other difference is that if you take the article out of context, which many people have, which is most likely the intent of the authors, you would come to the conclusion that the Pentagon has come to a concensus with environmentalists that their is sufficient evidence that man is to blame for global warming, which they clearly have not done.
The article does an interesting job of mixing what "climate researchers" are predicting and what the Pentagon is doing. The climate researchers they use as sources, ie- environmentalists, are predicting that we are causing global warming. That's nothing new.
The pentagon, on the other hand, is not predicting such a thing. They have simply been assigned the task of brain-storming different scenarios, weather related, terrorist related, etc., where the US might be at risk. They aren't necessarily saying that we are causing it. In fact, they are saying it's a natural cyclical occurance and they want to be prepared for it.
I thought it was important to stress the difference because yesterday I've seen posts on other boards where people were assuming the pentagon is predicting that we are causing global warming, and therefore, our demise.
Slashdot Mirror
the mysterious objects expose YOU!
nasa
on Nasa's site.
1 .htm
Looks like they were ahead of the times.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast28mar_
I think they should call it "karaseiyu". Kara means empty and oke means orchestra.
Empty actor, I believe, would be karaseiyu.
Movieoke is cute, though.
I don't know japanese though, any corrections?
sorry ... delete the space in the link
to this technology for nurses. I think the military has similar things in R&D.
9 91072
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99
You were smart to use the "Post Anonymously" on that one! :)
The article says you can have PIP to use it as a mirror and still watch TV. Also, they are working on a waterproof one for the bathroom.
I read your other post, and though I find it interesting, I disagree.
Using your "see the sun" example, let's look at two scenarios.
1. It's Friday, August 20, 2004 at 4:30pm and you are watching Oprah. The sun explodes and (for sake of discussion) expands at the speed of light. By 4:38, you're dead.
2. It's Friday, August 20, 2004 at 4:30pm and you are watching Oprah. The sun explodes and (for sake of discussion) expands at the speed of light. At 4:31pm a commercial comes on and you get up to get a bag of Doritos. Fortunately for you, you've recently invented a space travel machine and your Doritos are in another Solar System. You immediately are worm-holed out of your living room. By 4:38, your television is toast, but you are fine.
In both scenarios, the sun explodes at the same time in relation to your existence in the living room. And, in both scenarios, the realization that it has exploded hits your television at the same time. But it one scenario, you escape "in the meantime". Therefore, to the Oprah watcher, the "now" was certainly different in each scenario.
Thoughts?
This may be great news if one is looking at a common standard for communication
So, we're considering the 3,400 languages that will be left a common standard for communication?
I'm not trying to be a meany; but come on, that's a pretty odd statement to make.
Strange title considering life on Earth is thought to have been borne out of the toughest conditions.
I understand they are just saying "tough", but if life likely arose from similar (harsh) conditions, I don't think it would be that unlikely.
I'm not sure I'd draw the same conclusions as the author here. They start off by saying that sex will enduce certain chemicals which will in turn help to cause a feeling of lust or love in the voles. Then they go on to say if they inject certain chemicals in voles, it will cause them to "fall in love". But people (believe it or not) often fall in love sometimes without having sex. In other words, their thoughts produce the chemicals, which obviously is opposite of saying the chemicals produce the thoughts. It's a which comes first, the chicken or the egg problem. I think injecting chemicals in people would produce the euphoric state they mention in the article, but there needs to be thought processes along side of that to produce love.
I'm probably missing something here from their logic. Please correct me if so. Thanks.
Nice specs, except hard drive looks fairly small and slow for a gaming monster.
60GB 7,200-rpm hard drive
Would there be enough of this going on to account for evolutionary development of thick skulls?
Does this sound like an awful lot of beating going on to anyone else?
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/0 9/1724246&mode=thread&tid=134&tid=152&tid=160&tid= 185
astropodiki
I was wondering if any Slashdotters new if the muscle and bone loss is only a problem if the astronaut returns to earth, or even if they stay in the low gravity environment.
(On a side note, make sure you check out the caption in the article.)
This will come in handy in the bathroom
... but somebody was going to say it ...
I know
Thanks for clarifying this. I have had a bad experience with a "company" claiming to be my provider asking me for credit card info over and over again (calling long-distance onto my cell phone), which was not my provider.
I ended up changing my phone # to all 888-888-8888 to rectify, and the calls stopped immediately.
"I live in a 4 storey building, and pretty much everyone in this building is into gaming and computers."
... college.
Ah yes,
(1) It's not highly debated among scientists. It's hotly debated amoung ideologues. Those who know climatology are pretty clear on what is and is not understood, and the implications thereof.
0 4/2010235&mode=thread&tid=134
Global warming due to mans efforts has not been proven mathematically. I realize you may not agree, but it is highly debated among scientists. In fact, Slashdot has posted mathematical proofs and a thread to the contrary.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/
2) On if we make lots of legislation, but on assumptions that prove to be wrong, we're wasting our time: I'd better go cancel my health insurance policy then. Something horribly terrible, with a low probability of occurring, can still be worth avoiding even if it turns out not to happen.
We cannot waste billions of dollars on legislation based on an unproven theory. I agree it would be terrible if we were wrong. Unfortunately, there are many unproven scientific theories out there that many people would love to use as a basis for legislation. There is just too much of it out there. It's known as junk science, and as unpopular that concept is with real scientists, it exists in great quantity. Personal insurance is different in that mathematically it has been shown the probablility of a tragic occurance in a person's life, and insurance rates are computed based on that. Unfortunately, your analogy is a poor one. I do understand your point, though.
They probably don't consider "stressing the difference" important because there is no difference.
There are 2 differences.
One, the difference between proving man-made global warming versus natural global warming is huge. That's because if we assume it's manmade and we make lots of legislation because of it, then we're wasting our time if we're wrong. You make an assumption that is "clearly" true, but it's actually highly debated among scientists and policy makers.
The other difference is that if you take the article out of context, which many people have, which is most likely the intent of the authors, you would come to the conclusion that the Pentagon has come to a concensus with environmentalists that their is sufficient evidence that man is to blame for global warming, which they clearly have not done.
The article does an interesting job of mixing what "climate researchers" are predicting and what the Pentagon is doing. The climate researchers they use as sources, ie- environmentalists, are predicting that we are causing global warming. That's nothing new.
The pentagon, on the other hand, is not predicting such a thing. They have simply been assigned the task of brain-storming different scenarios, weather related, terrorist related, etc., where the US might be at risk. They aren't necessarily saying that we are causing it. In fact, they are saying it's a natural cyclical occurance and they want to be prepared for it. I thought it was important to stress the difference because yesterday I've seen posts on other boards where people were assuming the pentagon is predicting that we are causing global warming, and therefore, our demise.
I suppose the contractural mandate for at least one homosexual character won't be an issue anymore.
and his Patriot Act chronies are just pure evil. They are destroying America and it's time for a regime change!!!
{I don't really believe any of that, but I could use some free Slashdot Karma}