Current procedures for manual extraction of mature muscle tissue in micromechanical structures are time consuming and can damage the living components.
Let's just make sure that remains a "negative" shall we?
to see how the flying public reacts to the first accident or near accident on one of these things.
Personally, I welcome our massive economy-fare overlords. I fly constantly, but rarely have ever ridden in a 747. If they can take the bulk hub/hub passenger loads, I hope that will drive down prices across the network.
Even simply debarking from a full 747 from an unfavorable seat can take seemingly forever. This one will take a significant amount of time.
I have a lazy eye, and in the slightest bright light, I naturally squint that eye closed.
At age 37, I have for the last several years started to notice a distinct difference in hue and tone for certain colors and substances, when viewed through one eye vs. the other.
For example, skin is the most noticeable difference. Through my less-used eye, people in the right lighting look distinctly 'pinker'. Monitors too look bluer through my less-used eye. I have much better night vision in my less-used eye. Basically, I think over time our vision gets distinctly washed-out. The world really LOOKS brighter, when you're a kid.
I used to think that this would be an interesting research project for someone in the field, but none of my opthamologists seem to care.
One might point out the irony, in a purportedly-capitalist country, of the phrase "strangled by the stopped river of Irish government funding". As if public funding is this endless stream of bounty that is free for the wallowing.
Better to say "died because it really didn't produce anything of value, so people (the gov't) stopped wanting to pay for it."
...one would note that this might be an interim step to entirely prevent private gun sales.
Besides, "For smart gun, the observed actions are how the person squeezes something to produce a unique and measurable pattern." Fark that. If I need my gun, I would like to know that it will work even if my hand is broken, sweaty, I'm trembling in fear, or if I've been shot in the arm.
Thanks but no. Not that I ever expect to need a gun, but when one does it's not usually a fault-tolerant situation.
AFAIK throughout history, while the 'favored archetype' has morphed from Rubenesque to Twiggy to whatever, men have always been interested in women as sexual objects.
Perhaps the person assuming that we will 'evolve' not to feel this way or to organize our entertainment for these purposes is the one fooling themselves?
I've always wondered why it's the 'feminine' view of the world (negotiation, communication, empathy, non violence, nurturing, etc.) that we're supposedly aspiring to, leaving our bestial 'male' roots (violence, power, sex, etc.) behind? I mean, as any evolutionist will tell you, it's not a linear thing, and it's most certainly not a moral ascendance; it's whatever happens to offer a reproductive/survival advantage in a generation, gets favorably passed on.
What you are seeing in the Wiki fights is simply a microcosm of the conflicts that have permeated western societies since, well, the rise of humanism.
Who is authority? Who defines truth? Why should I believe them?
In our pseudo egalitarian society, we can no longer even really understand WHY someone would obey a king, or the concept of Divine Right, except insofar as the king-as-thug interpretation, since he's got all the military power and can threaten us. But the fact was that a great many people believed the king was the king because he DID have the divine right to be there.
What we see in Wiki is the ultimate in relativism - the 'consensus' decides what's truth, which I think we can all agree is patently absurd. But relativism has so overtaken our societies that no fact can simply be stated without dissent anymore. I that sense, Wiki is merely a symptom, not a disease of itself.
As the author states, if you use it, you vote for its validity. If you don't, you don't. Personally, I use Wiki all the time, and particularly for 'hot topics' I find it constantly plastered with bias and political correctness. (But then again, so are articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica - more subtle perhaps, but there is a probably bias inherent in any extended presentation of just about anything.)
Wiki is a useful friend who knows something about everything - you can ask him or her whatever you want and probably get a right answer. It doesn't mean Wiki should be held in the standard of a bibliographic reference tool, any more than a useful friend would be.
The article and all subsequent responses could have been quickly and easily summarized:
"Climate changes; humans adapt, or die. Life goes one, earth and the universe barely notice."
So many people are squealing about the climate change. So what? Anyone who expected that climate would never change, weather would never change, conditions would never change was inevitably in for a major surprise on one timescale or another.
People will adapt, or they will die. Or more likely, they will die in great numbers, but the survivors will adapt.
The Americans offered then the opportunity to join in the Iraqi invasion, kill anyone and everyone they want to, set up the most delicious camps, grab all the cheap oil that they want, letting Uncle Sam pick up the whole tab...and they turned it down?
Well duh. It wasn't France. Standing deal for 135 years or so, Germany's been clear - no war unless they get to knock France as part of the deal.
I would say that in this case, the Bush admin should be as open as possible...I'm going to try to pre-empt another claim, that of the People's Republic of China. In my opinion, they are not yet a threat, and policy can not be planned around hostilities - that's when you get a new cold war planned. Secrecy is a great debate for public policy - in this case, I'd say given the current situation, the prudent move would be to move towards openness.
OK, so if you're WRONG, then well, I guess we'll tell the history books that it's slashdot poster "Staplerh"s fault.
Please.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but could we have a modicum of respect for the premise that a GOVERNMENT has to have somewhat conservative views about the security of it's peoples? I mean, it's not just a 'judgement call' for the government, if they are wrong, people die, sometimes in horrifically large numbers. For a government it's not just a matter of opinion and judgement, it's a matter of choosing the MOST prudent and LEAST risky policy at almost all times.
I'm sure someone better informed can correct me if I'm wrong, but this sort of tech has been used on German taxis for years.
You know all the German taxis are those relatively nice Mercedes, but they are that heinous mustard-vomit yellow? That's an applied film, usually over a Mercedes of any number of colors. That way, when they are done using it, whoosh off comes the film and there they have a car which not only is a decent color (= decent resale value) but a 3-yr-old used car whose finish looks just like new.
Very cool, and I've wondered for years why they don't do that here for fleet and lease cars - not so much the color issue, but in terms of protecting a car's resale value.
Residual wave strikes: Washington DC Baltimore Philadelphia
Hm. From "flyover country" MN, aside from the enormous ocean pollution it would generate, I can't see much worth saving. If only we could arrange aftershocks to hit the west coast too.
I mean really, deathmatch was cool and teamfortress was probably the greatest mod ever written, but "speeds up the earth"? C'mon. I don't believe that.
In another note "The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves." Ah, Darwin moves in mysterious waves.
I just hope to god someone has the good sense to erase my laptop when I die. Just don't hand it to my loved ones for them to browse.....or something like that.
Yes, the only way that these poor chumps could have avoided being reported on would have been to have been a flamboyant Iraqi dictator. Then nobody would have wanted to hear about it.
Or maybe they should have had Kofi Annan judging. I understand his 'impartiality' is rather expensive but reliable.
...the New York Times is also reporting new evidence that Pharoah's real name was George "King Tut" Bush, and the climate change was clearly a result of bad karma due to his invasion of the lands of Babylon and rejection of a environmental treaty with the Assyrians.
Bush's 'crime' in the eyes of so many is to simply state honestly what's the truth: that in the interests of its own safety, the US will do pretty much whatever the fark it wants. OMFG that's so novel!
Should I tell you a dirty little secret? EVERY OTHER COUNTRY WILL DO THE SAME THING INSOFAR AS THEY ARE ABLE. They always have, they always will. Effete leftists can pooh-pooh the 'crudity' of American diplomacy all they want, but sometimes, just sometimes, there's a value in doing exactly what you say, and saying exactly what you'll do.
Yes Mr. Bush, you are evil for stating that the Emperor has no clothes, indeed. How dare you?
I read the eminently-predictable responses here on/. and have only a couple of questions:
1) are *any* of those criticizing this program people who otherwise would support it? Not that there's any monopoly on objectivity here, but there are tons of people for whom these 'technical' objections or 'financial' objections are simply massive red herrings for a political/social/'peace' agenda, or, who simply hate Bush and *anything* his administration attempts, no matter how worthy or valid. You people are no better than the shallow fools who hated Clinton and used personal character flaws to taint and functionally derail his presidency.
2) pardon me if I find the disingenuity of the "it's too expensive" responses entirely too precious. It's all a matter of priorities. One might say that giving millions of $$ of food aid to people in 3rd world countries, the most of whom are going to contribute nothing more to this dirty rock of a planet than another squalling bunch of starving chidren, is a complete waste. Some might say that spending $billions$ on 'big science' like supercolliders or space telescopes is a waste.
and finally 3) for those who say "it will never work anyway" either you're being stupid or disingenuous. Probably the latter. see also "We'll never fly faster than the speed of sound!", "If man had been meant to fly, God would have given us wings.", etc. The idea of shooting down a missile with a missile is simply a matter of computing power, specific impulse, and vectors. There's no intrinsically unknown science required (ala fusion, space elevators, etc.), simply a relatively predictable development of current tech. "BUT OMFG THE TEST FAILZORD!?!!?!?!?" well yes, that's called "development". Not many complex systems work the first time, nor even the second, nor even the 10th. All the/.ers who've programmed a million lines of code that worked PRECISELY the way you wanted it to without trace of bug, flaw, or error, please raise your hand.
I think these are wonderful. Talk about a brilliant way to get 9 and 10 year olds interested in the basic concepts of computing. I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm going to have to be buying bulk brick packs soon...
1) "the way the US government tries to control our scientific and...space-research"
Well, last time I checked, there weren't US Army Rangers kicking down the door of your research lab. So, how exactly is the US "controlling" your research? Please don't tell me that we are threatening to refuse funding, that would just be too ironic.
2) "Since we have developed a system that is clearly superior to anything the USA have (never mind the 20 years of operation of GPS, you could have progressed too...)"
Who says we haven't? Duh, let me see - the US introduced a system with unheard of accuracy, with a step-down for civilian uses. Shortly, the world tech community figured out a way to recalculate the stepdown so that they could share the precision the military used. Let me see - if we developed a more precise and robust version of the tech, do you think it would be ANNOUNCED? Geez.
You hate the way the American government is treating you? That's funny, I thought that it was your government treating you (in what ever way you don't like) at the request of the US gov't. If you don't like it, I thought you were at least nominally a democracy - change your government.
As long as you don't have anything like, well, FURNITURE.:roll:
There's are practical reasons that most post-Stone Age human dwellings have straight walls. 1) easier to build 2) for more USEFUL space inside.
A curved space may by hypothetically 'efficient' in a circumference-to-area measure, but remember that with a square or rectangular shape, multiple smaller squares and rectangles fit into it quite efficiently until the unit size reaches a significant fraction of the area enclosed, while circle- or sphere-packing remains the kind of entertainment only theoretical mathematicians can enjoy.
AFAIK in Germany at least, the TV schedules are almost totally non-synchronized ANYWAY. Whenever I'm there it seems that no TV schedules are harmonized to start/stop at common times.
Slashdot Mirror
Current procedures for manual extraction of mature muscle tissue in micromechanical structures are time consuming and can damage the living components.
Let's just make sure that remains a "negative" shall we?
- Goodlife
(Runs off to read Berserker books again.)
to see how the flying public reacts to the first accident or near accident on one of these things.
Personally, I welcome our massive economy-fare overlords. I fly constantly, but rarely have ever ridden in a 747. If they can take the bulk hub/hub passenger loads, I hope that will drive down prices across the network.
Even simply debarking from a full 747 from an unfavorable seat can take seemingly forever. This one will take a significant amount of time.
IMO it's possibly just your eyes.
I have a lazy eye, and in the slightest bright light, I naturally squint that eye closed.
At age 37, I have for the last several years started to notice a distinct difference in hue and tone for certain colors and substances, when viewed through one eye vs. the other.
For example, skin is the most noticeable difference. Through my less-used eye, people in the right lighting look distinctly 'pinker'. Monitors too look bluer through my less-used eye. I have much better night vision in my less-used eye. Basically, I think over time our vision gets distinctly washed-out. The world really LOOKS brighter, when you're a kid.
I used to think that this would be an interesting research project for someone in the field, but none of my opthamologists seem to care.
One might point out the irony, in a purportedly-capitalist country, of the phrase "strangled by the stopped river of Irish government funding". As if public funding is this endless stream of bounty that is free for the wallowing.
Better to say "died because it really didn't produce anything of value, so people (the gov't) stopped wanting to pay for it."
Phrased that way, somewhere Darwin is smiling.
...one would note that this might be an interim step to entirely prevent private gun sales.
Besides, "For smart gun, the observed actions are how the person squeezes something to produce a unique and measurable pattern." Fark that. If I need my gun, I would like to know that it will work even if my hand is broken, sweaty, I'm trembling in fear, or if I've been shot in the arm.
Thanks but no. Not that I ever expect to need a gun, but when one does it's not usually a fault-tolerant situation.
That people are as they are?
AFAIK throughout history, while the 'favored archetype' has morphed from Rubenesque to Twiggy to whatever, men have always been interested in women as sexual objects.
Perhaps the person assuming that we will 'evolve' not to feel this way or to organize our entertainment for these purposes is the one fooling themselves?
I've always wondered why it's the 'feminine' view of the world (negotiation, communication, empathy, non violence, nurturing, etc.) that we're supposedly aspiring to, leaving our bestial 'male' roots (violence, power, sex, etc.) behind? I mean, as any evolutionist will tell you, it's not a linear thing, and it's most certainly not a moral ascendance; it's whatever happens to offer a reproductive/survival advantage in a generation, gets favorably passed on.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/image -details.cfm?imageID=1270
Dare I say it?
That's no moon....that's a space station!
I believe we should start training our X Wing pilots to hit Womp Rats in Beggar's Canyon NOW.
What you are seeing in the Wiki fights is simply a microcosm of the conflicts that have permeated western societies since, well, the rise of humanism.
Who is authority? Who defines truth? Why should I believe them?
In our pseudo egalitarian society, we can no longer even really understand WHY someone would obey a king, or the concept of Divine Right, except insofar as the king-as-thug interpretation, since he's got all the military power and can threaten us. But the fact was that a great many people believed the king was the king because he DID have the divine right to be there.
What we see in Wiki is the ultimate in relativism - the 'consensus' decides what's truth, which I think we can all agree is patently absurd. But relativism has so overtaken our societies that no fact can simply be stated without dissent anymore. I that sense, Wiki is merely a symptom, not a disease of itself.
As the author states, if you use it, you vote for its validity. If you don't, you don't. Personally, I use Wiki all the time, and particularly for 'hot topics' I find it constantly plastered with bias and political correctness. (But then again, so are articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica - more subtle perhaps, but there is a probably bias inherent in any extended presentation of just about anything.)
Wiki is a useful friend who knows something about everything - you can ask him or her whatever you want and probably get a right answer. It doesn't mean Wiki should be held in the standard of a bibliographic reference tool, any more than a useful friend would be.
The article and all subsequent responses could have been quickly and easily summarized:
"Climate changes; humans adapt, or die. Life goes one, earth and the universe barely notice."
So many people are squealing about the climate change. So what? Anyone who expected that climate would never change, weather would never change, conditions would never change was inevitably in for a major surprise on one timescale or another.
People will adapt, or they will die. Or more likely, they will die in great numbers, but the survivors will adapt.
So it ever has been, so will it be.
The Americans offered then the opportunity to join in the Iraqi invasion, kill anyone and everyone they want to, set up the most delicious camps, grab all the cheap oil that they want, letting Uncle Sam pick up the whole tab...and they turned it down?
Well duh. It wasn't France.
Standing deal for 135 years or so, Germany's been clear - no war unless they get to knock France as part of the deal.
Jesus people learn some history.
I would say that in this case, the Bush admin should be as open as possible...I'm going to try to pre-empt another claim, that of the People's Republic of China. In my opinion, they are not yet a threat, and policy can not be planned around hostilities - that's when you get a new cold war planned. Secrecy is a great debate for public policy - in this case, I'd say given the current situation, the prudent move would be to move towards openness.
OK, so if you're WRONG, then well, I guess we'll tell the history books that it's slashdot poster "Staplerh"s fault.
Please.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but could we have a modicum of respect for the premise that a GOVERNMENT has to have somewhat conservative views about the security of it's peoples? I mean, it's not just a 'judgement call' for the government, if they are wrong, people die, sometimes in horrifically large numbers. For a government it's not just a matter of opinion and judgement, it's a matter of choosing the MOST prudent and LEAST risky policy at almost all times.
I'm sure someone better informed can correct me if I'm wrong, but this sort of tech has been used on German taxis for years.
You know all the German taxis are those relatively nice Mercedes, but they are that heinous mustard-vomit yellow? That's an applied film, usually over a Mercedes of any number of colors. That way, when they are done using it, whoosh off comes the film and there they have a car which not only is a decent color (= decent resale value) but a 3-yr-old used car whose finish looks just like new.
Very cool, and I've wondered for years why they don't do that here for fleet and lease cars - not so much the color issue, but in terms of protecting a car's resale value.
90m wave strikes:
New York
Boston
Miami
Hartford
Residual wave strikes:
Washington DC
Baltimore
Philadelphia
Hm. From "flyover country" MN, aside from the enormous ocean pollution it would generate, I can't see much worth saving. If only we could arrange aftershocks to hit the west coast too.
I mean really, deathmatch was cool and teamfortress was probably the greatest mod ever written, but "speeds up the earth"? C'mon. I don't believe that.
In another note "The author comments that tsunami warnings may not help much, as people often flock to the coastline to see the giant waves."
Ah, Darwin moves in mysterious waves.
I just hope to god someone has the good sense to erase my laptop when I die. Just don't hand it to my loved ones for them to browse. ....or something like that.
Yes, the only way that these poor chumps could have avoided being reported on would have been to have been a flamboyant Iraqi dictator. Then nobody would have wanted to hear about it.
Or maybe they should have had Kofi Annan judging. I understand his 'impartiality' is rather expensive but reliable.
...the New York Times is also reporting new evidence that Pharoah's real name was George "King Tut" Bush, and the climate change was clearly a result of bad karma due to his invasion of the lands of Babylon and rejection of a environmental treaty with the Assyrians.
Amazing the stuff you find out.
And that's precisely it.
Bush's 'crime' in the eyes of so many is to simply state honestly what's the truth: that in the interests of its own safety, the US will do pretty much whatever the fark it wants. OMFG that's so novel!
Should I tell you a dirty little secret? EVERY OTHER COUNTRY WILL DO THE SAME THING INSOFAR AS THEY ARE ABLE. They always have, they always will. Effete leftists can pooh-pooh the 'crudity' of American diplomacy all they want, but sometimes, just sometimes, there's a value in doing exactly what you say, and saying exactly what you'll do.
Yes Mr. Bush, you are evil for stating that the Emperor has no clothes, indeed. How dare you?
I read the eminently-predictable responses here on /. and have only a couple of questions:
/.ers who've programmed a million lines of code that worked PRECISELY the way you wanted it to without trace of bug, flaw, or error, please raise your hand.
1) are *any* of those criticizing this program people who otherwise would support it? Not that there's any monopoly on objectivity here, but there are tons of people for whom these 'technical' objections or 'financial' objections are simply massive red herrings for a political/social/'peace' agenda, or, who simply hate Bush and *anything* his administration attempts, no matter how worthy or valid. You people are no better than the shallow fools who hated Clinton and used personal character flaws to taint and functionally derail his presidency.
2) pardon me if I find the disingenuity of the "it's too expensive" responses entirely too precious. It's all a matter of priorities. One might say that giving millions of $$ of food aid to people in 3rd world countries, the most of whom are going to contribute nothing more to this dirty rock of a planet than another squalling bunch of starving chidren, is a complete waste. Some might say that spending $billions$ on 'big science' like supercolliders or space telescopes is a waste.
and finally
3) for those who say "it will never work anyway" either you're being stupid or disingenuous. Probably the latter. see also "We'll never fly faster than the speed of sound!", "If man had been meant to fly, God would have given us wings.", etc. The idea of shooting down a missile with a missile is simply a matter of computing power, specific impulse, and vectors. There's no intrinsically unknown science required (ala fusion, space elevators, etc.), simply a relatively predictable development of current tech. "BUT OMFG THE TEST FAILZORD!?!!?!?!?" well yes, that's called "development". Not many complex systems work the first time, nor even the second, nor even the 10th. All the
I think these are wonderful. Talk about a brilliant way to get 9 and 10 year olds interested in the basic concepts of computing. I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm going to have to be buying bulk brick packs soon...
Nice job!
1) "the way the US government tries to control our scientific and...space-research"
Well, last time I checked, there weren't US Army Rangers kicking down the door of your research lab. So, how exactly is the US "controlling" your research? Please don't tell me that we are threatening to refuse funding, that would just be too ironic.
2) "Since we have developed a system that is clearly superior to anything the USA have (never mind the 20 years of operation of GPS, you could have progressed too...)"
Who says we haven't? Duh, let me see - the US introduced a system with unheard of accuracy, with a step-down for civilian uses. Shortly, the world tech community figured out a way to recalculate the stepdown so that they could share the precision the military used. Let me see - if we developed a more precise and robust version of the tech, do you think it would be ANNOUNCED? Geez.
You hate the way the American government is treating you? That's funny, I thought that it was your government treating you (in what ever way you don't like) at the request of the US gov't. If you don't like it, I thought you were at least nominally a democracy - change your government.
Date and Time (original): 2004:11:22 18:52:52
Exposure Time: 1/19 sec.
Aperture: f/5.6
And for the photo After:
Date and Time (original): 2004:11:22 18:52:37
Original 18:52:52
"After": 18:52:37
?
Clearly, it's a visual aberration caused by the wayback machine's time vortices.
As long as you don't have anything like, well, FURNITURE. :roll:
There's are practical reasons that most post-Stone Age human dwellings have straight walls.
1) easier to build
2) for more USEFUL space inside.
A curved space may by hypothetically 'efficient' in a circumference-to-area measure, but remember that with a square or rectangular shape, multiple smaller squares and rectangles fit into it quite efficiently until the unit size reaches a significant fraction of the area enclosed, while circle- or sphere-packing remains the kind of entertainment only theoretical mathematicians can enjoy.
And then he goes home at night and bones a woman 20 years his junior
More like 35, 40 years his junior, knowing Hollywood these days.
Unlikely even a woman, knowing Hollywood these days.
AFAIK in Germany at least, the TV schedules are almost totally non-synchronized ANYWAY. Whenever I'm there it seems that no TV schedules are harmonized to start/stop at common times.