Chaco canyon is a dark sky park. Or is a "preserve" something different? I was at Chaco last month, the ranger told me they even have a say in what new lighting is put up in the nearest towns.
With LEDs, the challenges in outdoor lighting we faced years ago are fairly trivial to solve.
People will just over-light anyway because that's what they do and LEDs are a cheaper way of achieving this. The improved directionality isn't all that helpful because there's now more light hitting surfaces and so more reflecting off those surfaces and into to the atmosphere. Plus they're delivering white light and you can't filter this out as effectively with light pollution filters. Over the years I've been seeing orange low pressure sodium glows replaced with white glows from LEDs. The latter are worse.
As others had mentioned... you don't need to transmit audible signals into someones head to make them hear it. You simply need to transmit signals which trigger the mind to believe they are audible. Microwave and others are perfectly capable of having this effect..
This, I refuse to subscribe to HBOGo, I happily pirate Game of Thrones.
Or you could buy it from the Play store for the perfectly reasonable price of 3 bucks per episode. I don't know if that link will work for you, but here in Europe that's the deal.
Hint: CO2 levels are flat if you don't cherry pick the historical data
So what cherry picking is producing this non-flat graph? What should the graph look like and what is the basis for your answer? Include your citations.
Those should be weeded out, as that this person wants to off themselves, and would do it by most any means. It isn't an unintended death, the gun is working properly, but the method doesn't matter, it is what the person wanted to do.
I'm inclined to agree: suicide is a different issue. That said, I think the reason they leave that number in is because having a quick and easy method to kill yourself lowers the bar and makes it easier and more likely to happen.
Perhaps, but the sort of censorship we're seeing here is just a heavy-handed way of attempting to steer discussion on social media and chat apps. The other thing they did recently was remove is a load of foreign material from bilibili.com/, which is a Chinese video sharing site with subtitles and viewer commentary.
If you really want to secretly share an image, there are a bunch of ways of doing that. What you're seeing with these recent actions are attempts to push around the most number of people with the least effort.
Funnily enough, holography and optics are techniques that could enable high-bandwidth reading of neural activity (they already do to a degree). Problem is that you have to express viruses in the neurons to make them fluoresce in an activity-dependent way and you need to replace the skull with glass.
What you're saying makes sense. This article makes me wonder about the state of brain-machine interfacing. Obviously at a very crude level, brain to hand to machine to eye to brain interfacing already exists, but the bandwidth is somewhat low. If we were to leave out possible ethical considerations for the moment, is there anything you could implant into the skull of a baby monkey say, that would allow the brain to interface in a bi-directional way with large bandwidth? Is there anything we can implant that can be inside the skull long term without health effects with current or soon to be realized technology?
One could debate the definition of "large" but basically there is no such device, no. I should point out, however, that cochlear implants are technically a neural prosethsis and they have been shown to work well over years. Unidirectional, though. The Wikipedia page on briain machine interfaces is quite compehensive. But consider an interesting key point: imagine an implant in motor cortex of a paralysed patient. We seek to use neural firing to move something like a robotic arm. Unlike the cochlear implant, we don't know what is the code for motion in the motor cortex and we can't predict which cells we'll be listening to. Furthermore, there is no code for motion in your brain for a robotic arm. So what ends up happening is that both the patient has to learn to use the arm and model analysing the neural data has to learn to read the signals. So in an odd sense, both the brain and the computer cooopertively converge on a solution for moving the arm. If you search for videos of these arm motions you'll see they're still very slow and painstaking.
So if we're slow at moving an arm, we're not going to be readig elaborate thoughts. In fact, one might argue that to read elaborate thoughts we'd have to largely have "solved" the brain in the first place. That's not happening in a decade.
Given the state of the art in this field: the current state of neuroscience and related advances in neurosurgery (fields I work in), I'd say there is zero chance of this happening in 8 years. Scalp electrodes give messy and very coarse signals. You get good signals from electrodes embedded in brains, but they're very localised and electrodes degrade fairly quickly and need to be removed.
Some modern humans are afraid that vaccines can trigger autism in infants who are not ill, and are unlikely to be permanently affected by the disease being vaccinated against.
You're not wrong. Sci-Hub is in violation of the law, no doubt about that. Morally though, I absolutely could not care less, and think that what is really wrong is hoarding knowledge in the form of the tax payer funded publications which Sci-Hub is now making accessible for all.
This is mostly true but there are details worth highlighting. Not all research is tax payer funded. Some of it is funded by private entitites like HHMI or the Wellcome Trust. Quite a few papers are available for free even some recent ones from top journals. Sometimes the funding body insists on this and pays extra to make sure it's the case. The Wellcome Trust do this. Finally, you can often download people's papers from the websites (illegal, probably) or just ask them for a copy. It's not convenient but it does work. Of course this plan doesn't help if the researcher has packed up or died.
Indeed. I'd go further: it's not even clear to me why something that solves problems by brute-force can't be inteligent. It could well even be that our brains are also brute-forcing but in parallel rather than in series. We don't know that they're not.
Not really, I miss the old Lego, before they tried to make nothing but branded and licensed parts that sell well because of their associated content.
Actually they have less special parts now. It was one of the things they fixed during the turn-around. They have licensed models, but fewer special parts.
True, but they do know a bit about risk management and they do have incentive to create something useful and then use that to profit big. No results means no income, it's a gamble. You could of course hire some public scientists, but it's very hard to say who is doing anything productive. What I've come to realize more and more about the public sector is that without competition you pass everything straight through to the end user.
What you call "public science" is a pretty competitive career. The currency is just research papers and influence rather than pure financial profit.
Slashdot Mirror
Buy disks, rip, compress, keep it with you. (disks are super cheap on the used market these days)
Which used markets are those? Certainly not e-bay or Amazon.
Chaco canyon is a dark sky park. Or is a "preserve" something different? I was at Chaco last month, the ranger told me they even have a say in what new lighting is put up in the nearest towns.
With LEDs, the challenges in outdoor lighting we faced years ago are fairly trivial to solve.
People will just over-light anyway because that's what they do and LEDs are a cheaper way of achieving this. The improved directionality isn't all that helpful because there's now more light hitting surfaces and so more reflecting off those surfaces and into to the atmosphere. Plus they're delivering white light and you can't filter this out as effectively with light pollution filters. Over the years I've been seeing orange low pressure sodium glows replaced with white glows from LEDs. The latter are worse.
As others had mentioned... you don't need to transmit audible signals into someones head to make them hear it. You simply need to transmit signals which trigger the mind to believe they are audible. Microwave and others are perfectly capable of having this effect. .
Here is a citation (I didn't believe you, TBH).
This, I refuse to subscribe to HBOGo, I happily pirate Game of Thrones.
Or you could buy it from the Play store for the perfectly reasonable price of 3 bucks per episode. I don't know if that link will work for you, but here in Europe that's the deal.
Hint: CO2 levels are flat if you don't cherry pick the historical data
So what cherry picking is producing this non-flat graph? What should the graph look like and what is the basis for your answer? Include your citations.
I'm not paying $180/yr to see Game of Thrones
Last time I checked the new episodes for Season 7 are 3 bucks each on Google's Play store.
Obviously we want pets to keep eating meat, it's good for them.
I tried this with the last three rabbits I had. None of them lived very long, so I'm considering changing diet for the next one. I'll try fish next.
Those should be weeded out, as that this person wants to off themselves, and would do it by most any means. It isn't an unintended death, the gun is working properly, but the method doesn't matter, it is what the person wanted to do.
I'm inclined to agree: suicide is a different issue. That said, I think the reason they leave that number in is because having a quick and easy method to kill yourself lowers the bar and makes it easier and more likely to happen.
Perhaps, but the sort of censorship we're seeing here is just a heavy-handed way of attempting to steer discussion on social media and chat apps. The other thing they did recently was remove is a load of foreign material from bilibili.com/, which is a Chinese video sharing site with subtitles and viewer commentary.
If you really want to secretly share an image, there are a bunch of ways of doing that. What you're seeing with these recent actions are attempts to push around the most number of people with the least effort.
So it'll be slow and really low resolution. It won't work. At least it won't do anything very interesting. Anything we can't do now.
Even America doesn't believe in free market capitalism, judging by its actions
The free market is a myth. All markets are regulated or rigged in some way or other.
Funnily enough, holography and optics are techniques that could enable high-bandwidth reading of neural activity (they already do to a degree). Problem is that you have to express viruses in the neurons to make them fluoresce in an activity-dependent way and you need to replace the skull with glass.
What you're saying makes sense. This article makes me wonder about the state of brain-machine interfacing. Obviously at a very crude level, brain to hand to machine to eye to brain interfacing already exists, but the bandwidth is somewhat low. If we were to leave out possible ethical considerations for the moment, is there anything you could implant into the skull of a baby monkey say, that would allow the brain to interface in a bi-directional way with large bandwidth? Is there anything we can implant that can be inside the skull long term without health effects with current or soon to be realized technology?
One could debate the definition of "large" but basically there is no such device, no. I should point out, however, that cochlear implants are technically a neural prosethsis and they have been shown to work well over years. Unidirectional, though. The Wikipedia page on briain machine interfaces is quite compehensive. But consider an interesting key point: imagine an implant in motor cortex of a paralysed patient. We seek to use neural firing to move something like a robotic arm. Unlike the cochlear implant, we don't know what is the code for motion in the motor cortex and we can't predict which cells we'll be listening to. Furthermore, there is no code for motion in your brain for a robotic arm. So what ends up happening is that both the patient has to learn to use the arm and model analysing the neural data has to learn to read the signals. So in an odd sense, both the brain and the computer cooopertively converge on a solution for moving the arm. If you search for videos of these arm motions you'll see they're still very slow and painstaking.
So if we're slow at moving an arm, we're not going to be readig elaborate thoughts. In fact, one might argue that to read elaborate thoughts we'd have to largely have "solved" the brain in the first place. That's not happening in a decade.
Given the state of the art in this field: the current state of neuroscience and related advances in neurosurgery (fields I work in), I'd say there is zero chance of this happening in 8 years. Scalp electrodes give messy and very coarse signals. You get good signals from electrodes embedded in brains, but they're very localised and electrodes degrade fairly quickly and need to be removed.
Some modern humans are afraid that vaccines can trigger autism in infants who are not ill, and are unlikely to be permanently affected by the disease being vaccinated against.
It's not an evidence-based fear, though, is it?
You're not wrong. Sci-Hub is in violation of the law, no doubt about that. Morally though, I absolutely could not care less, and think that what is really wrong is hoarding knowledge in the form of the tax payer funded publications which Sci-Hub is now making accessible for all.
This is mostly true but there are details worth highlighting. Not all research is tax payer funded. Some of it is funded by private entitites like HHMI or the Wellcome Trust. Quite a few papers are available for free even some recent ones from top journals. Sometimes the funding body insists on this and pays extra to make sure it's the case. The Wellcome Trust do this. Finally, you can often download people's papers from the websites (illegal, probably) or just ask them for a copy. It's not convenient but it does work. Of course this plan doesn't help if the researcher has packed up or died.
Indeed. I'd go further: it's not even clear to me why something that solves problems by brute-force can't be inteligent. It could well even be that our brains are also brute-forcing but in parallel rather than in series. We don't know that they're not.
And interestingly quickly went out of fashion (even during the end of his life) and was only "rediscovered" in the early 20 century.
So don't make your huge test files in a directory that is being monitored for back up. This extends to any similar back up system, not just this one.
Not really, I miss the old Lego, before they tried to make nothing but branded and licensed parts that sell well because of their associated content.
Actually they have less special parts now. It was one of the things they fixed during the turn-around. They have licensed models, but fewer special parts.
You can still find generic kits: they're cheap too. There are also over-priced versions aimed squarely at adults.
True, but they do know a bit about risk management and they do have incentive to create something useful and then use that to profit big. No results means no income, it's a gamble. You could of course hire some public scientists, but it's very hard to say who is doing anything productive. What I've come to realize more and more about the public sector is that without competition you pass everything straight through to the end user.
What you call "public science" is a pretty competitive career. The currency is just research papers and influence rather than pure financial profit.
Actually, there is a nice place where you can use all of this CO2 - make the richer mixture of CO2/Air and use it in greenhouses.
Isn't that what we're doing right now?
OS nobody has heard of now ships with Steam and Slack... Great.
The insects will bounce back once we're out of the picture, don't worry.