I am looking at a KEK article, "Belle Discovers a New Particle." I notice that Figure 2 portrays the formation of the X(3872) particle through the decay products of electron-positron annihilation. This makes me wonder how the X(3872) particle is so massive? Electrons and positrons have hardly any mass, compared to a helium atom, but the X(3872) particle is said to have about as much mass as a helium atom. Not only do we get an X(3872), but we get a K-meson out of the deal! Where are we getting all this mass?
Note: Please keep this undergraduate. I enjoy Physics, but my sub-atomic education is limited to a few books I've read.
In the past few weeks, that the amount of "spim" on AIM has practically gone from 0 to 5 or 6 a day? Or did they only just find my AIM name?
They just found your name.
I have an AOL account, which I usually only visit for a few minutes a day (I use other providers for my actual Internet access). For the last year or two, I've been getting "spim" when I am online. This is what AOL is designed to do.
You see, AOL sells itself as a community, and part of that community is being able to meet new people. I have an online profile that I wrote about 6 years ago, and a few people became my friends through that. But, over time, people with commercial interests began to use AOL's chat, the same way they use AOL's e-mail.
I happened to be on AOL yesterday around 0200, reading my AOL e-mail. As I might have predicted, my reflection was interupted by yet another "woman" offering me naughty pictures if I click on a provided link. The person sending me the spim is not on AOL. I get 1 or 2 of these every hour, and most or all of them are from people who are not on AOL. I simply hit the "Ignore" button and return to what I was doing. My only other option to get rid of them would be to turn off my IM completely, which I don't want to do.
Does everyone expect patients to carry their prescriptions (or their prescription bottles) with them at all times?
In 1970s Arizona, it was the law that prescription meds had to be carried in the prescription bottle. I remember watching a news report about that law, and how many people were surprised to discover they are breaking the law by carrying their prescription meds in a carry case.
Though this is good news for the drug war, I wonder if the technology is also able to detect the difference between fertilizer and explosives? It would be great if we had a scanner that could quickly and safely determine if someone is carrying explosives.
Forest Mims *is* a great writer for electronics stuff, so it's a shame SciAm couldn't give him a column that wouldn't deal with biology -- cool electronic project of the month, or somesuch. His Engineer's Notebooks are great, understandable references, and it's good to see that they're being used to teach kids basic electrical principles. Goodness knows we need more technically-savvy people, and it's best to hook them young.:)
That's what I'm getting at, champ... Mr. Mims did not write about Creationism in his Sci Am articles. There is nothing in Mr. Mims' Sci Am articles that account for his firing. He was fired because Sci Am decided to purge any Creationists from their ranks. The merits of his work did not matter to them. That is classical bigotry.
Let's ask it another way: suppose they had fired a flat-earth believer? Would you say that was bigotry? If not, who gives you the right to say for other people which scientific claims are ridiculous and which should be tolerated, that flat-earthers can be fired but creationists can't?
If you would claim that firing a flat-earther is bigotry, then is there any scientific claim that you believe would justify breaking their association? Or do the editors of a scientific publication have no choice whatever but to accept any scientific claim no matter how idiotic?
As I said in my initial post, Sci Am did not fire Mr. Mims for the content of his articles. Sci Am never claimed that anything that Mr. Mims submitted, much less published, was "idiotic." Sci Am fired Mr. Mims because of his beliefs.
If a Flat-Earther were to submit a paper to a science publication, I would hope the publication would judge the submission on the merits of the submission, not on the beliefs of the author.
One more time, just so it sinks in: Scientific American did NOT fire Mr. Mims for the content of his articles! They fired him because he is a Creationist.
How 'bout you show us a single instance of a pro-Creationist article published anywhere that meets the technical standards of the scientific community?
My five-minute search produced several Web-published articles that I believe will meet your criteria. I have more in print form, packed away for now. Out of roughly 80 articles available to my by my quick search, I'll link to two, chosen more-or-less at random:
That is statistically interesting, but tells me nothing more than that. My last senior chief in the U.S. Navy was a tobacco-smoking, beer-bellied, foul-mouthed Southern Baptist. I have visited several Southern Baptist churches in which the preacher would condemn cigarette smoking, but, after the service, the members would stand around in the parking lot, smoking cigarettes. Just about anything passes for a Southern Baptist.
and I wish to observe that you help nobody when you try to paint this as flat-out unconscionable bigotry.
It is flat-out, unconscionable bigotry.
Suppose Mr Mims was to publish a creationist book, or speak at a creationist conference. He could, in such a situation, cite his association with SciAm to bolster the credibility of his arguments. The editors of SciAm have an absolute right NOT to have their reputation used to support an idea they reject.
And that is flat-out hypocrisy. Carl Sagan had no problem writing the forward to a book co-authored by a Soviet Communist. Dr. Sagan said that he left the statements by the Communist as they were, even the pro-Communist statements.
Whatever we may believe about God, those who do not so believe have an absolute right to ensure that there's no chance they are seen as endorsing ideas they reject.
Suppose Sci Am rejected Mr. Mims because Mr. Mims were a Moslem? Or, a Buddhist? Or, a Communist? Or, a Nazi? The scientific community would not stand for that. In science, supposedly, works are supposed to be judged individually, on their own merits. In logic, pointing out that the proponent of an argument is an objectionable person is called a fallacy, "Poisoning the Well." But, bigots will be bigots!
If this Forrest Mims guy is a Creationist/Scientist in the spirit of the Nun-Scientist, then he can call BS at "Scientific American" and I'll agree. If however, he is a Creationist/Scientist that rejects accepted science out of hand, then I would have to agree with the magazine.
Accepted by whom? Evolutionists? Or, Creationists?
If Mr. Mims' work had been unacceptable, "Scientific American" could point to that, but they can't. They did not fire him because his articles were defective. They fired him because he is a Creationist, even though he did not write about Creationism in his articles. This is typical of the bigotry in the scientific publishing community: they simply refuse to publish articles that even hint of supporting Creationism (though a few articles have slipped through, when appropriately worded). Then, all the little evolutionists run around taunting, "Show us a single instance of a pro-Creationist article published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed science journal." There aren't any openly Creationistic articles in those journals purely because the editors simply refuse to run them, regardless of merit.
I noticed that the SAS Store sells "Forrest Mims Engineer's Notebook." I would like to highlight one little comment in the advertising blurb:
"His editorial exploits have included an assignment from the National
Enquirer to evaluate the feasibility of eavesdropping on Howard Hughes by laser (it was
possible, but Forrest declined to take part) and getting dropped by Scientific American as their
'The Amateur Scientist' columnist because he admitted to the magazine's editors that he was a
born-again Christian."
I just want to point out that Mr. Mims wasn't dropped from "Scientific American" exactly because he is a born-again Christian. He was dropped because he is a Creationist. "Scientific American" is just one of the many bigoted publications that refuses to deal reasonably with the subject of Creationism. As a consequence of their firing Mr. Mims, I have refused to buy "Scientific American" for the last several years.
Isn't it a little ridiculous how many plans are out there on the net to build your own imitations of available commercial products?
No. Some people enjoy taking apart and building automobile engines. Some people enjoy designing and building their own aircraft. Some people enjoy growing fruits and vegetables in their own backyard garden. Some people even enjoy coding their own software. So, there is nothing ridiculous about some people enjoying electronic assembly.
I envy, but also pity those who have the time and dedication to invest in such pirsuits.
The Encyclopedia of Electronic Circuits, Volume 6
The Encyclopedia of Electronic Circuits, Volume 7
The ARRL Handbook for Radio Communications (2003), 80th Edition
HF Digital Handbook
Spread Spectrum Sourcebook
Complete Wireless Design
Secrets of RF Circuit Design
I understand this may sound a little harsh, and many Slashdotters "root for the underdog," but I'm sure some of us here probably work in the consumer product industry and make our living designing/building/selling these things.
This has nothing to do with "rooting for the underdog." People build these projects usually because they ENJOY building these projects!
The last thing we need is another one or one-hundred rogues to take away our business by giving away plans for cheap knock-offs.
There are thousands of bakers and cooks in this country, and here I am with a recipe book...
Personally I wouldn't spend my time and money into these projects for a few reasons: they haven't been certified,
That's your choice, of course, but you won't help our society by attacking the hobbiest market.
My Mom sews clothes for people. Nobody has certified her, either, but people actually buy things she has made.
they were designed by an amateur or amateurs (usually), and the cost of time, frustration, raw materials and tools required far exceed the price of just buying an off-the-shelf unit.
There is nothing like the satisfaction of seeing your own project actually work. After I installed an oil pressure gauge in my old Dodge Dart, I spent a lot more time watching that gauge than I required to read the oil pressure.
Years ago, "Radio Electronics" magazine featured directions for etching and assembling the motherboard of a 386 computer from scratch. A hobbiest who could build one of those and make it work definitely would have a lot of bragging rights, even though most people would not understand what he meant when he says he built his own computer.
I enjoy assembling my own computers from component parts. It's kind of therapeutic. Besides that, I have yet to see anyone offer a computer off-the-shelf that is exactly like I want.
And to a lesser extent, they are intended to undermine an existing company's business by discouraging the purchase of their product and instead building a cheap rip-off that is "almost" as good.
For nearly every laser currently available, 99.9% of the energy you use to pump the laser goes into heat; only a small fraction is converted to coherent light.
Of course, the numbers vary greatly, depending on the type of laser. Most visible light lasers are highly inefficient; helium-neons are about 0.1% efficient at converting wallplug electricity into light. However, other lasers are far more efficient than helium-neons. The best wallplug efficiency in diode lasers is over 50% at room temperature, and I have seen even higher efficiencies for cryogenically-cooled diode lasers.
"The goal of the SHEDS program is to increase diode laser wall plug efficiency to 65% in the first 18 months of the project, with a target of 80% in the following 18 months."
There have been two references in this thread to the SHARP project, in which microwaves were used to power an airplane remotely. So, I decided to dig up an old memory of mine, the microwave-powered helicopter:
1964
"At a 28 October press conference, Raytheon, under contract with RADC, demonstrated an experimental microwave-powered helicopter. The significance of this effort was not merely in the development of the equipment, but in the technological advances, particularly the use of a microwave beam to transfer power. The helicopter subsequently was included in a federal science and engineering exhibit."
Note that these devices need not use a maser or microwave laser; an ordinary microwave source is sufficient.
"The founding father of modern microwave power transmission gave a presentation and showed videos of the microwave-powered helicopter that he built for the Air Force in the 1970's which was also funded by Raytheon. A Japanese group showed videos of their microwave-powered room size blimp, and a group from University of Alaska showed videos of their progress on a small microwave-powered helicopter. All of these devices are based on some form of "rectenna" which is an antenna array which rectifies the electromagnetic beam impinging on it. Usually, special rectifying diodes are used. Efficiencies are remarkably high: >90% for the antenna and >~65% for the entire system at typical powers of tens of Kilowatts. The greatest loss comes from generating the microwaves in the first place from DC power. JPL, NASA, and other folks talked a lot about their design for the satellite which will collect solar energy and beam it down to earth."
Well, if it is invisible, by definition I could not see it...
lasers are in the visible light spectrum
I have an Associate's Degree in Laser Electro-Optic Technology. Any oscillator that produces electromagnetic radiation in the range of infrared or shorter wavelengths by the process of stimulated emission of radiation is considered a laser. In fact, the name has become shorthand for just about anything that produces a beam of anything through quantum triggering (e.g., an "atom laser"). A carbon dioxide laser's primary (strongest) output wavelength is 1.6 microns, which is well within the infrared portion of the spectrum, and completely invisible to the human eye. The Nd:YAG laser also produces its primary wavelength in the infrared range (the beam is often sent through a frequency doubling crystal, which produces green light at half the power of the input beam). CD players use an infrared diode laser (invisible beam). At the other side of the visible spectrum, the eximer laser produces ultraviolet light, at a wavelength that is invisible to the normal human eye. The nitrogen laser also produces a beam that is not directly visible to the unaided human eye, but the beam causes air to fluoresce in a wavelength normally visible to humans.
Don't worry about this bill, son. The Democrats are doing their best to prove they are still in control by *shutting down* the government, not by passing any bills. The last I heard, the day the remaining 10 Texas state senators announced they would return to Texas from their hideout in New Mexico, the Texas governor announced the third special session would begin the following Monday.
This bill is all bluster and glitter, intended for show, not for progress. If any of this stuff gets done, it won't be due to this bill.
My wife calls my favorite computer game (Space Empires IV) "Spreadsheets in Spaaaaace!" because it's mostly about economic and logistical management rather than intense combat or stunning visuals. I can play it for hours at a time, but I'm well aware that I'm far from normal in this regard.
My favorite games are "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri" and Ultima's "Martian Dreams." All my gaming friends like games like Quake, Unreal Tournament and Everquest. Some of them have tried SMAC, but they try to play it like a shooter game (which you can do, at the expense of so many nifty game features). I like to let my inner Napolean run free, exploring strange, new worlds and building world-spanning empires, rather than running around try to kill everyone as fast as possible.
I just thought you ought to be aware of how common and old the "Gravity is a Push" idea is. I first encountered it about 5 years ago, on sci.physics. Apparently, NASA has done research on this, though NASA has researched some rather oddball topics of late. Ditto the Patent Office.
So compiling a program is now a form of steganography???
What would that look like? If literal, it would mean that some of the bits of the compiled code were changed to hide the extraneous message. I think the most likely result of doing that would be the program would not run, or would run unpredictably. However, that is not to say that some companies don't hide secret message or secret code inside compiled software. This secret information sometimes is called, "Easter eggs." I understand that Microsoft Word has a flight simulator hidden within it. I wonder how much these hidden codes increase program size?
Programs are compiled so that the machine can run it. Period. That's the only reason.
There are methods used when writing the code and assembling the code that will make it more difficult to decompile the code, and that is the primary purpose of using these methods. The code would work just as well without using these methods.
Several years ago, I used my new copy of MASM 5.0 and hexedit to decompile several programs. I was a student, and it was interesting to see how the code was written. I even looked at some Microsoft code, but I ran into the problem of some special programming technique that called for a code jump that I could not follow. The code trail simply disappeared at that point. I had been told that Microsoft used that technique to make it harder to reverse engineering its software.
Correct Link to InfoWorld Article
on
Garmin iQue 3600
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Several sources are talking today about Garmin's new iQue 3600
So it would appear, but I don't see why they are doing so now. Garmin released the iQue 3600 at least 6 months ago. In fact, Slashdot covered the story on January 20, 2003 (12:06 P.M.).
The cost was insignificant to anyone who is/was floored by this picture
You do know that the "Picture of the Day" changes, so the picture we see there now is probably not the same picture you have in mind? For example, the picture I saw when I clicked on your link was of the Hubble deep sky photograph showing a bunch of galaxies. I would assume you had in mind a picture of the Shuttle?
We did get a nice selection of Moon rocks and core samples, which wasn't as simple as just picking up some rocks at random and shipping them back home. The Apollo astronauts had a lot of geological training, and one of the astronauts was even a professional geologist.
We also got that nifty laser retro-reflector on the surface and a few other scientific instruments.
Did you know that foam has fallen off the "bipod" of the shuttle's tank "on at least six other shuttle missions." Why was nothing done about this previosly?
NASA believed the insulating foam could not cause significant harm to the shuttles. After all, the foam is not dense or strong. It disintigrates when crushed.
Slashdot Mirror
Note: Please keep this undergraduate. I enjoy Physics, but my sub-atomic education is limited to a few books I've read.
They just found your name.
I have an AOL account, which I usually only visit for a few minutes a day (I use other providers for my actual Internet access). For the last year or two, I've been getting "spim" when I am online. This is what AOL is designed to do.
You see, AOL sells itself as a community, and part of that community is being able to meet new people. I have an online profile that I wrote about 6 years ago, and a few people became my friends through that. But, over time, people with commercial interests began to use AOL's chat, the same way they use AOL's e-mail.
I happened to be on AOL yesterday around 0200, reading my AOL e-mail. As I might have predicted, my reflection was interupted by yet another "woman" offering me naughty pictures if I click on a provided link. The person sending me the spim is not on AOL. I get 1 or 2 of these every hour, and most or all of them are from people who are not on AOL. I simply hit the "Ignore" button and return to what I was doing. My only other option to get rid of them would be to turn off my IM completely, which I don't want to do.
Feb 1997
Wired: The Doomslayer
Aug 2nd 2001
Economist: The truth about the environment
In 1970s Arizona, it was the law that prescription meds had to be carried in the prescription bottle. I remember watching a news report about that law, and how many people were surprised to discover they are breaking the law by carrying their prescription meds in a carry case.
I don't know if Arizona changed that law or not.
That's what I'm getting at, champ... Mr. Mims did not write about Creationism in his Sci Am articles. There is nothing in Mr. Mims' Sci Am articles that account for his firing. He was fired because Sci Am decided to purge any Creationists from their ranks. The merits of his work did not matter to them. That is classical bigotry.
If you would claim that firing a flat-earther is bigotry, then is there any scientific claim that you believe would justify breaking their association? Or do the editors of a scientific publication have no choice whatever but to accept any scientific claim no matter how idiotic?
As I said in my initial post, Sci Am did not fire Mr. Mims for the content of his articles. Sci Am never claimed that anything that Mr. Mims submitted, much less published, was "idiotic." Sci Am fired Mr. Mims because of his beliefs.
If a Flat-Earther were to submit a paper to a science publication, I would hope the publication would judge the submission on the merits of the submission, not on the beliefs of the author.
One more time, just so it sinks in: Scientific American did NOT fire Mr. Mims for the content of his articles! They fired him because he is a Creationist.
My five-minute search produced several Web-published articles that I believe will meet your criteria. I have more in print form, packed away for now. Out of roughly 80 articles available to my by my quick search, I'll link to two, chosen more-or-less at random:
ICR: "The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating," by Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. (PDF format)
CRS Quarterly: "A Mechanism for Accelerated Radioactive Decay," by Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D.
That is statistically interesting, but tells me nothing more than that. My last senior chief in the U.S. Navy was a tobacco-smoking, beer-bellied, foul-mouthed Southern Baptist. I have visited several Southern Baptist churches in which the preacher would condemn cigarette smoking, but, after the service, the members would stand around in the parking lot, smoking cigarettes. Just about anything passes for a Southern Baptist.
and I wish to observe that you help nobody when you try to paint this as flat-out unconscionable bigotry.
It is flat-out, unconscionable bigotry.
Suppose Mr Mims was to publish a creationist book, or speak at a creationist conference. He could, in such a situation, cite his association with SciAm to bolster the credibility of his arguments. The editors of SciAm have an absolute right NOT to have their reputation used to support an idea they reject.
And that is flat-out hypocrisy. Carl Sagan had no problem writing the forward to a book co-authored by a Soviet Communist. Dr. Sagan said that he left the statements by the Communist as they were, even the pro-Communist statements.
Whatever we may believe about God, those who do not so believe have an absolute right to ensure that there's no chance they are seen as endorsing ideas they reject.
Suppose Sci Am rejected Mr. Mims because Mr. Mims were a Moslem? Or, a Buddhist? Or, a Communist? Or, a Nazi? The scientific community would not stand for that. In science, supposedly, works are supposed to be judged individually, on their own merits. In logic, pointing out that the proponent of an argument is an objectionable person is called a fallacy, "Poisoning the Well." But, bigots will be bigots!
Accepted by whom? Evolutionists? Or, Creationists?
If Mr. Mims' work had been unacceptable, "Scientific American" could point to that, but they can't. They did not fire him because his articles were defective. They fired him because he is a Creationist, even though he did not write about Creationism in his articles. This is typical of the bigotry in the scientific publishing community: they simply refuse to publish articles that even hint of supporting Creationism (though a few articles have slipped through, when appropriately worded). Then, all the little evolutionists run around taunting, "Show us a single instance of a pro-Creationist article published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed science journal." There aren't any openly Creationistic articles in those journals purely because the editors simply refuse to run them, regardless of merit.
Harper's: The radioactive boy scout
"His editorial exploits have included an assignment from the National Enquirer to evaluate the feasibility of eavesdropping on Howard Hughes by laser (it was possible, but Forrest declined to take part) and getting dropped by Scientific American as their 'The Amateur Scientist' columnist because he admitted to the magazine's editors that he was a born-again Christian."
The Forrest Mims Engineer's Notebook
I just want to point out that Mr. Mims wasn't dropped from "Scientific American" exactly because he is a born-again Christian. He was dropped because he is a Creationist. "Scientific American" is just one of the many bigoted publications that refuses to deal reasonably with the subject of Creationism. As a consequence of their firing Mr. Mims, I have refused to buy "Scientific American" for the last several years.
Another blurb on Forrest Mims from another site: ISCID: Forrest M. Mims III
No. Some people enjoy taking apart and building automobile engines. Some people enjoy designing and building their own aircraft. Some people enjoy growing fruits and vegetables in their own backyard garden. Some people even enjoy coding their own software. So, there is nothing ridiculous about some people enjoying electronic assembly.
I envy, but also pity those who have the time and dedication to invest in such pirsuits.
Here, let me really make your day:
FetchBook.info
List of books on this page:
Encyclopedia of Electronic Circuits, Vol. 4
McGraw-Hill Circuit Encyclopedia & Troubleshooting Guide, Volume 2
McGraw-Hill Circuit Encyclopedia & Troubleshooting Guide, Volume 3
McGraw-Hill Circuit Encyclopedia & Troubleshooting Guide, Volume 4
Printed Circuit Board Materials Handbook
Measuring Circuits
Converter & Filter Circuits
Electronic Technology Handbook
ELEKTA Professional: Knowledge-Based Systems for Electronics, CD-ROM & Manual
Quality Technical Books
Partial list of books on this page:
The Encyclopedia of Electronic Circuits, Volume 6
The Encyclopedia of Electronic Circuits, Volume 7
The ARRL Handbook for Radio Communications (2003), 80th Edition
HF Digital Handbook
Spread Spectrum Sourcebook
Complete Wireless Design
Secrets of RF Circuit Design
I understand this may sound a little harsh, and many Slashdotters "root for the underdog," but I'm sure some of us here probably work in the consumer product industry and make our living designing/building/selling these things.
This has nothing to do with "rooting for the underdog." People build these projects usually because they ENJOY building these projects!
The last thing we need is another one or one-hundred rogues to take away our business by giving away plans for cheap knock-offs.
There are thousands of bakers and cooks in this country, and here I am with a recipe book...
Personally I wouldn't spend my time and money into these projects for a few reasons: they haven't been certified,
That's your choice, of course, but you won't help our society by attacking the hobbiest market.
My Mom sews clothes for people. Nobody has certified her, either, but people actually buy things she has made.
they were designed by an amateur or amateurs (usually), and the cost of time, frustration, raw materials and tools required far exceed the price of just buying an off-the-shelf unit.
There is nothing like the satisfaction of seeing your own project actually work. After I installed an oil pressure gauge in my old Dodge Dart, I spent a lot more time watching that gauge than I required to read the oil pressure.
Years ago, "Radio Electronics" magazine featured directions for etching and assembling the motherboard of a 386 computer from scratch. A hobbiest who could build one of those and make it work definitely would have a lot of bragging rights, even though most people would not understand what he meant when he says he built his own computer.
I enjoy assembling my own computers from component parts. It's kind of therapeutic. Besides that, I have yet to see anyone offer a computer off-the-shelf that is exactly like I want.
And to a lesser extent, they are intended to undermine an existing company's business by discouraging the purchase of their product and instead building a cheap rip-off that is "almost" as good.
Boy, that's going to be a tough sell...
Of course, the numbers vary greatly, depending on the type of laser. Most visible light lasers are highly inefficient; helium-neons are about 0.1% efficient at converting wallplug electricity into light. However, other lasers are far more efficient than helium-neons. The best wallplug efficiency in diode lasers is over 50% at room temperature, and I have seen even higher efficiencies for cryogenically-cooled diode lasers.
"The goal of the SHEDS program is to increase diode laser wall plug efficiency to 65% in the first 18 months of the project, with a target of 80% in the following 18 months."
Alfalight Selected by DARPA for Super High Efficiency Diode Sources (SHEDS) Program
1964
"At a 28 October press conference, Raytheon, under contract with RADC, demonstrated an experimental microwave-powered helicopter. The significance of this effort was not merely in the development of the equipment, but in the technological advances, particularly the use of a microwave beam to transfer power. The helicopter subsequently was included in a federal science and engineering exhibit."
(Photo included)
1964 History: Rome Air Development Center
Note that these devices need not use a maser or microwave laser; an ordinary microwave source is sufficient.
"The founding father of modern microwave power transmission gave a presentation and showed videos of the microwave-powered helicopter that he built for the Air Force in the 1970's which was also funded by Raytheon. A Japanese group showed videos of their microwave-powered room size blimp, and a group from University of Alaska showed videos of their progress on a small microwave-powered helicopter. All of these devices are based on some form of "rectenna" which is an antenna array which rectifies the electromagnetic beam impinging on it. Usually, special rectifying diodes are used. Efficiencies are remarkably high: >90% for the antenna and >~65% for the entire system at typical powers of tens of Kilowatts. The greatest loss comes from generating the microwaves in the first place from DC power. JPL, NASA, and other folks talked a lot about their design for the satellite which will collect solar energy and beam it down to earth."
The 1996 IEEE MTT Conference
Well, if it is invisible, by definition I could not see it...
lasers are in the visible light spectrum
I have an Associate's Degree in Laser Electro-Optic Technology. Any oscillator that produces electromagnetic radiation in the range of infrared or shorter wavelengths by the process of stimulated emission of radiation is considered a laser. In fact, the name has become shorthand for just about anything that produces a beam of anything through quantum triggering (e.g., an "atom laser"). A carbon dioxide laser's primary (strongest) output wavelength is 1.6 microns, which is well within the infrared portion of the spectrum, and completely invisible to the human eye. The Nd:YAG laser also produces its primary wavelength in the infrared range (the beam is often sent through a frequency doubling crystal, which produces green light at half the power of the input beam). CD players use an infrared diode laser (invisible beam). At the other side of the visible spectrum, the eximer laser produces ultraviolet light, at a wavelength that is invisible to the normal human eye. The nitrogen laser also produces a beam that is not directly visible to the unaided human eye, but the beam causes air to fluoresce in a wavelength normally visible to humans.
Don't worry about this bill, son. The Democrats are doing their best to prove they are still in control by *shutting down* the government, not by passing any bills. The last I heard, the day the remaining 10 Texas state senators announced they would return to Texas from their hideout in New Mexico, the Texas governor announced the third special session would begin the following Monday.
This bill is all bluster and glitter, intended for show, not for progress. If any of this stuff gets done, it won't be due to this bill.
My favorite games are "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri" and Ultima's "Martian Dreams." All my gaming friends like games like Quake, Unreal Tournament and Everquest. Some of them have tried SMAC, but they try to play it like a shooter game (which you can do, at the expense of so many nifty game features). I like to let my inner Napolean run free, exploring strange, new worlds and building world-spanning empires, rather than running around try to kill everyone as fast as possible.
Gravity is a PUSH! United States Patent Number 5,377,936
Walter Wright's Push Gravity: First posted on the KeelyNet BBS on February 15, 1992 as WRIGHT.TXT
Oddbooks: Gravity is a Push
What would that look like? If literal, it would mean that some of the bits of the compiled code were changed to hide the extraneous message. I think the most likely result of doing that would be the program would not run, or would run unpredictably. However, that is not to say that some companies don't hide secret message or secret code inside compiled software. This secret information sometimes is called, "Easter eggs." I understand that Microsoft Word has a flight simulator hidden within it. I wonder how much these hidden codes increase program size?
Programs are compiled so that the machine can run it. Period. That's the only reason.
There are methods used when writing the code and assembling the code that will make it more difficult to decompile the code, and that is the primary purpose of using these methods. The code would work just as well without using these methods.
Several years ago, I used my new copy of MASM 5.0 and hexedit to decompile several programs. I was a student, and it was interesting to see how the code was written. I even looked at some Microsoft code, but I ran into the problem of some special programming technique that called for a code jump that I could not follow. The code trail simply disappeared at that point. I had been told that Microsoft used that technique to make it harder to reverse engineering its software.
So it would appear, but I don't see why they are doing so now. Garmin released the iQue 3600 at least 6 months ago. In fact, Slashdot covered the story on January 20, 2003 (12:06 P.M.).
Uh-oh, now I'm going to be modded down...
You do know that the "Picture of the Day" changes, so the picture we see there now is probably not the same picture you have in mind? For example, the picture I saw when I clicked on your link was of the Hubble deep sky photograph showing a bunch of galaxies. I would assume you had in mind a picture of the Shuttle?
We did get a nice selection of Moon rocks and core samples, which wasn't as simple as just picking up some rocks at random and shipping them back home. The Apollo astronauts had a lot of geological training, and one of the astronauts was even a professional geologist.
We also got that nifty laser retro-reflector on the surface and a few other scientific instruments.
NASA believed the insulating foam could not cause significant harm to the shuttles. After all, the foam is not dense or strong. It disintigrates when crushed.