I can't believe you can't use google to see what the hell I was posting about. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie= UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&q=hms+dreadnought+hoax
Nat Deverich's "Power of Love" predates by thirty years. It premiered on September 27, 1922. Using an anaglyphic process developed by Harry Fairall, it starred Terry O'Neil and Barbara Bedford.
I have been unable to find exactly what the "new" prime is, and was wondering if it fell between the current 37 and 38. If it did, it would be only the 38th, and the "old" 38 would be the "new" 39.
If you can figure out a way to cure cancer using wasted CPU cycles, I'll give you a prize! Do we have a deal? Sarcasm aside, if there truly is a way to do this, it indeed should be our first priority, but, correct me if I'm wrong, there is not. In the event that there is a way, it should definitely be a bigger deal than anyone is making it.
Not only do you ignore correct diction regarding "they're", you also overlook mankind's duty to push the limits of mathematics. The discovery of this number adds data to an extremely small list. Who knows what amazing theories will be made as more data is collected from similar research projects?
The number itself, being millions of digits long, is obviously too large to show here, but it can easily be expressed in the form (2^p)-1, where p is some prime number, probably in the tens of millions.
Another issue arises regarding the "prize money" when one actually reads the text of the webpage, which specifically states that money will only be awarded to Mersenne primes with more than ten million digits; the one "found" has far less than this.
Anyone who saw the finals knows what I'm talking about here. The refs called a knockout against Biohazard while both bots were still moving. They decided to send it to the judges from there. This would have been fine, except at the time, one of the braces which keeps the pounding mechanisms at constant distances from one another had come off at one end, so the bot was just spinning beneath it's stationary weapons frame. The odds that Biohazard would have been able to overturn it seem fairly likely. I don't know about anyone else, but I would still like to see a rematch, though I realize this is now impossible.
I have only been to two FIRST competitions, the Great Lakes Regional in 2000, and again in 2001. However, from these examples, simply to say it is a robotics competition does not serve it justice. I have many times described it as a combination of a dance party, a basketball game, and a science fair. It is truly one of the most unique atmospheres I have ever encountered. After the first day of competition, there was a dance party at a different part of the Eastern Michigan University campus. Although I was disappointed not only by the selection of music (nearly all rap), but by the DJ-imposed ban on moshing (how the hell else do you "dance" to Nirvana?), it was still a great experience. Dean Kamen, the founder, and inventor of a portable dialysis machine, IT, et al, made an appearance at the 2000 competition. I don't know if all the regional competitions are like this, but interested high school students should look into it. Even if your school doesn't have a team, it is not hard to just create one. Our team started two years ago when my friend Val convinced our local school board to give us $5,000 (the entry fee). Usually, however, a sponsor is corporate (as ours was this year). Anyone high school student with the slightest interest in robotics and the tiniest motivation should definitely look into this. The official web site is at http://www.usfirst.org Go team 451!
What kind of things can you do with a negative index of refraction that you couldn't otherwise? I understand that it refracts the "wrong" way, but what does that mean for science and technology? The article only says that it can do cool new stuff, but never says exactly what. If anyone with any ideas on this would care to enlighten me, it would be greatly appreciated.
But just because that something cannot be explained by any other means, does that necessarily require whatever random theory may explain the phenomenon to be true? In the 1500s, people KNEW the earth was flat; it of course wasn't, but the point is that a widely accepted assumption is not a fact. The only proof that a black hole exists is to actually find one. If ever a body was found that exhibited all the properties of a black hole, and was without a trace of doubt a black hole, then it would be proven that black holes exist.
Why is this such a big deal? It's not like black holes were ever proved in the first place. And it's not like they still can't be used in sci-fi. God only knows the number of scientific inaccuracies in movies like that, what's another one going to hurt? All in all I think that this article should be appreciated; opposing views help to discern fact from fiction. Additionally, the lack of any proven existing black holes did hurt the theory to begin with. My only question is: What about wormholes? Is there any other way that spacetime could tear without blackholes (or similar phenomenons)? Would this kill one of the ten dimensional superstring theories, since it relies on six of our dimensions being trapped in another universe that broke off of our own just after the big bang?
Tetrachromats would not see color in a fourth dimension; they see color as being the product of four other colors, rather than three. The difference is great. Color itself in general has three dimensions. It is merely the way that our eyes perceive light. Hue describes the frequency; saturation describes the amplitude; and brightness describes the intensity. There would not be some sort of fourth aspect of light waves to be interpretted. Therefore, tetrachromatic vision does not add a fourth dimension to the perception of color, it merely adds another possible color of perception.
Actually, black is not so much a color as it is the absense of all color. There are two physical characteristics of light that determine how we perceive it: wavelength, which determines its hue, and amplitude, which determines its brightness. As rods, which detect black, white, and shades of gray, are not color receptors, black is not technically a part of this group of colors, as are red, green, and blue, or yellow, cyan, and magenta.
Trichromatic theory is just that, a theory. It states that colors are viewed as a combination of other pure colors. Soon after it was proposed in the nineteenth century, Ewald Hering noted some unexplained phenomenon. For example, yellow is seen as a mixing of red and green light, yet some who cannot perceive red or green light can still see yellow. Also, why does yellow appear to be a pure color, rather than a mixing of red and green, as purple does of blue and red? He then proposed the idea of opponent processing, based on the occurence of afterimages. For instance, if a red squared is stared at for long enough, and then a white sheet of paper is viewed, a red square will be seen; red is the opponent color of green. This was confirmed through research more than a century later. Some neurons in the thalamus are turned "on" by red and "off" by green. If one color is detected by the retina at a certain point, the opposing color cannot be simultaneously detected at the same point, which is why there is no such thing as a reddish green or a greenish red. All this considered, it is probable that both trichromatic and opposite processing theory are used in the perception of visual images. If these tetrachromats perceive a color between red and green, that totally blows opposite process theory, since it would be like a state between true and false. So if opposite processing theory is not true, then, how does yellow fit into all this? Further research will most likely concentrate on such questions.
All it basically said was "If things keep changing the way that they are, in the distant future, things will be very different." What an utter waste of time for me to have read it all. It also says, summarized, of course, "Once we have new building materials that we don't have now, we will be able to construct new things with new materials." I don't even know why that was posted. Read some Drexler; it's good stuff.
Sex cells, being haploid rather than diploid, are different than "regular" cells. A woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have; none are even "cloned" from previously produced eggs. Sperm are produced by cells that are not sperm cells; they do not reproduce by cell division, unlike many other cells.
This sort of technology has been around for at least a year. The only thing that this article says that is really news is the ease in which these nanotubes were produced. This really is very useful, because further research will most likely be able to create nanotubes of uniform diamter. Stuff along the lines of Drexler is a lot farther down the road.
Well, I apologize for my spelling errors; this is what happens when my school's AP Bio course gets nixed. Accidents and such will still take lives. Healing could be iniated by one of those special shots I was talking about. This is why I claimed this was so cool. It also is more or less impossible. Don't look for this kind of technology any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think I want anything to do with this.
Are you serious? It's the first damn link.
I can't believe you can't use google to see what the hell I was posting about.= UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&q=hms+dreadnought+hoax
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie
I can't believe they left this out. Another great hoax perpetuated by the great Horace Cole, who also did #78.
I suppose I should have tacked on "feature length." to my statement.
Nat Deverich's "Power of Love" predates by thirty years. It premiered on September 27, 1922. Using an anaglyphic process developed by Harry Fairall, it starred Terry O'Neil and Barbara Bedford.
I have been unable to find exactly what the "new" prime is, and was wondering if it fell between the current 37 and 38. If it did, it would be only the 38th, and the "old" 38 would be the "new" 39.
If you can figure out a way to cure cancer using wasted CPU cycles, I'll give you a prize! Do we have a deal? Sarcasm aside, if there truly is a way to do this, it indeed should be our first priority, but, correct me if I'm wrong, there is not. In the event that there is a way, it should definitely be a bigger deal than anyone is making it.
Not only do you ignore correct diction regarding "they're", you also overlook mankind's duty to push the limits of mathematics. The discovery of this number adds data to an extremely small list. Who knows what amazing theories will be made as more data is collected from similar research projects?
The number itself, being millions of digits long, is obviously too large to show here, but it can easily be expressed in the form (2^p)-1, where p is some prime number, probably in the tens of millions.
Mersenne primes point directly to perfect numbers, which have on occassion been used in computer algorithms.
Primes are independent of base systems. Thirteen is prime whether you write it as "13", "D" or "1101." A small amount of arithmetic could verify this.
Another issue arises regarding the "prize money" when one actually reads the text of the webpage, which specifically states that money will only be awarded to Mersenne primes with more than ten million digits; the one "found" has far less than this.
Anyone who saw the finals knows what I'm talking about here. The refs called a knockout against Biohazard while both bots were still moving. They decided to send it to the judges from there. This would have been fine, except at the time, one of the braces which keeps the pounding mechanisms at constant distances from one another had come off at one end, so the bot was just spinning beneath it's stationary weapons frame. The odds that Biohazard would have been able to overturn it seem fairly likely. I don't know about anyone else, but I would still like to see a rematch, though I realize this is now impossible.
I have only been to two FIRST competitions, the Great Lakes Regional in 2000, and again in 2001. However, from these examples, simply to say it is a robotics competition does not serve it justice. I have many times described it as a combination of a dance party, a basketball game, and a science fair. It is truly one of the most unique atmospheres I have ever encountered. After the first day of competition, there was a dance party at a different part of the Eastern Michigan University campus. Although I was disappointed not only by the selection of music (nearly all rap), but by the DJ-imposed ban on moshing (how the hell else do you "dance" to Nirvana?), it was still a great experience. Dean Kamen, the founder, and inventor of a portable dialysis machine, IT, et al, made an appearance at the 2000 competition. I don't know if all the regional competitions are like this, but interested high school students should look into it. Even if your school doesn't have a team, it is not hard to just create one. Our team started two years ago when my friend Val convinced our local school board to give us $5,000 (the entry fee). Usually, however, a sponsor is corporate (as ours was this year). Anyone high school student with the slightest interest in robotics and the tiniest motivation should definitely look into this. The official web site is at http://www.usfirst.org Go team 451!
What kind of things can you do with a negative index of refraction that you couldn't otherwise? I understand that it refracts the "wrong" way, but what does that mean for science and technology? The article only says that it can do cool new stuff, but never says exactly what. If anyone with any ideas on this would care to enlighten me, it would be greatly appreciated.
But just because that something cannot be explained by any other means, does that necessarily require whatever random theory may explain the phenomenon to be true? In the 1500s, people KNEW the earth was flat; it of course wasn't, but the point is that a widely accepted assumption is not a fact. The only proof that a black hole exists is to actually find one. If ever a body was found that exhibited all the properties of a black hole, and was without a trace of doubt a black hole, then it would be proven that black holes exist.
Why is this such a big deal? It's not like black holes were ever proved in the first place. And it's not like they still can't be used in sci-fi. God only knows the number of scientific inaccuracies in movies like that, what's another one going to hurt? All in all I think that this article should be appreciated; opposing views help to discern fact from fiction. Additionally, the lack of any proven existing black holes did hurt the theory to begin with. My only question is: What about wormholes? Is there any other way that spacetime could tear without blackholes (or similar phenomenons)? Would this kill one of the ten dimensional superstring theories, since it relies on six of our dimensions being trapped in another universe that broke off of our own just after the big bang?
Tetrachromats would not see color in a fourth dimension; they see color as being the product of four other colors, rather than three. The difference is great. Color itself in general has three dimensions. It is merely the way that our eyes perceive light. Hue describes the frequency; saturation describes the amplitude; and brightness describes the intensity. There would not be some sort of fourth aspect of light waves to be interpretted. Therefore, tetrachromatic vision does not add a fourth dimension to the perception of color, it merely adds another possible color of perception.
Actually, black is not so much a color as it is the absense of all color. There are two physical characteristics of light that determine how we perceive it: wavelength, which determines its hue, and amplitude, which determines its brightness. As rods, which detect black, white, and shades of gray, are not color receptors, black is not technically a part of this group of colors, as are red, green, and blue, or yellow, cyan, and magenta.
Trichromatic theory is just that, a theory. It states that colors are viewed as a combination of other pure colors. Soon after it was proposed in the nineteenth century, Ewald Hering noted some unexplained phenomenon. For example, yellow is seen as a mixing of red and green light, yet some who cannot perceive red or green light can still see yellow. Also, why does yellow appear to be a pure color, rather than a mixing of red and green, as purple does of blue and red? He then proposed the idea of opponent processing, based on the occurence of afterimages. For instance, if a red squared is stared at for long enough, and then a white sheet of paper is viewed, a red square will be seen; red is the opponent color of green. This was confirmed through research more than a century later. Some neurons in the thalamus are turned "on" by red and "off" by green. If one color is detected by the retina at a certain point, the opposing color cannot be simultaneously detected at the same point, which is why there is no such thing as a reddish green or a greenish red. All this considered, it is probable that both trichromatic and opposite processing theory are used in the perception of visual images. If these tetrachromats perceive a color between red and green, that totally blows opposite process theory, since it would be like a state between true and false. So if opposite processing theory is not true, then, how does yellow fit into all this? Further research will most likely concentrate on such questions.
All it basically said was "If things keep changing the way that they are, in the distant future, things will be very different." What an utter waste of time for me to have read it all. It also says, summarized, of course, "Once we have new building materials that we don't have now, we will be able to construct new things with new materials." I don't even know why that was posted. Read some Drexler; it's good stuff.
Sex cells, being haploid rather than diploid, are different than "regular" cells. A woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have; none are even "cloned" from previously produced eggs. Sperm are produced by cells that are not sperm cells; they do not reproduce by cell division, unlike many other cells.
This sort of technology has been around for at least a year. The only thing that this article says that is really news is the ease in which these nanotubes were produced. This really is very useful, because further research will most likely be able to create nanotubes of uniform diamter. Stuff along the lines of Drexler is a lot farther down the road.
Well, I apologize for my spelling errors; this is what happens when my school's AP Bio course gets nixed. Accidents and such will still take lives. Healing could be iniated by one of those special shots I was talking about. This is why I claimed this was so cool. It also is more or less impossible. Don't look for this kind of technology any time soon.