If the case industry has against Pirate Bay were to go public, what would Pirate Bay look like? A group of immature adolescents making sport of mocking authority. Not defenders of freedom, etc. Losing public support means potentially losing whatever legislative support keeps the site running. Is it worth the lame jokes to lose such a site?
So Japan controls cockroaches, then women/people, and now we have sharks and a number of groups around the world that have gained ethical approval to develop implants that can monitor and influence the behaviour of animals, from sharks and tuna to rats and monkeys.
It is easy to decry the abuse of the animals in question. It is equally easy to see the potential benefits to the relatively small number of humans (globally) who have nerve damage. But why no hue and cry on the potential abuse of this technology on humans? Guns, germs, and chemicals may kill you. This can enslave you.
a) researchers wired some rats and made them run up and down a straight run and watched some nerve cells fire;
b) researchers saw the same nerve cells activate in reverse order while the rats rested;
c) researchers speculate either wildly or obviously that the rats are replaying the event and that maybe the rats are mentally replaying the run, and that maybe it would be the same in a maze, and maybe this coincides with dopamine release (not observed or measured), and that if maybe that were so, it would maybe tell us something about memory.
d) researchers are thrilled because this has never been seen before and is what they would expect.
Now what the hell is that? Seeing an as yet unexplained, and previously unexpected, phenomenon and declaring it coincides with expectations based on speculation?
Perhaps the story started off as simply about a new technique that allowed monitoring of individual nerve cells (which is news worthy) and got embellished by the media who couldn't see the value of it.
The conclusion:
"It suggests that those idle times, perhaps spent gazing into space, are actually crucial for our brains to replay, and learn from, recent experiences."
is banal in the extreme. Sports psychologists, for example, call the process "visualization" and it has been a training technique for decades.
A sad commentary on science reporting no matter how you look at it.
It is easy to lose sight of who is responsible to whom and for what.
a) Employer: NASA is "paid by the taxpayer" but is responsible to the people through the government. Strictly speaking the employees really don't have the right to spout their personal opinions unless it is clear and obvious that it is their own opinion. The minute you come out with a personal opinion on government letterhead (figuratively or otherwise) then you are now perceived as presenting the government opinion. And since the government may have to answer to that opinion on your behalf is it surprising that they show a very keen interest in what you might say?;
b) Employee: some of the examples of government interference such as putting "theory" after every occurence of "Big Bang" seem absurdly benign. The "Big Bang" is a theory. If the government is legally embroiled with issues of "theory", such as Intelligent Design, obviously it is only a lawyer away from being told that it is misrepresenting its own theories by not labelling them as such. Instead of viewing this example as a religious zealot trying to stick it to the scientists, maybe it's a case of a bureaucrat being keenly aware of the potential legal ramifications of careless wording; and
c) Responsibility: Don't scientists have a responsibility to think about what their limitations are? A car mechanic providing a recommendation does so with the thorough knowledge of a system that a climatologist, or any scientist doing deep research, does not. Furthermore, scientists and most people in general have little clue how to get their ideas across to the media. This is why governments and companies have Public Relations staff. The latter have a keen knowledge of the impact of communications that is lost on most people. Most accusations of "altering" levied against PR depts that I have personally encountered are cases of technical staff being pedantic, quibbling over nuances of words while the PR folk try to explain that the public/communication target will not understand a "precise" statement.
It is easy to be alarmist but if you start with the hypothesis that the government is populated by mostly good people trying to do a decent job, you can come up with many plausible and valid reasons why some things happen.
And by the way, Progress is the job of a scientist... 'Presenting research' is the method, not the goal. But the scientist in the article did not present just research. The research was the state of the climate and possible causes. A suggestion for the cure was an opinion.
... I'd like to point out that me and most of my ilk do not deny the climate is changing vis-a-vis the short term historical record. I do question profoundly that the changes represent extremes or that it is human driven. I wonder:
a) at the arrogance that drives the yeah-sayers to believe humanity has such a profound impact on the environment;
b) that the yeah-sayers believe that the impact is controllable when they have scant knowledge of the processes involved (Did you hear the latest news? Plants produce methane. Who knew? I know the climatologists didn't.); and
c) that the yeah-sayers can seriously believe statistically drawn predictions based on an absolute paucity of long term and accurate historical data (Would you make a ten year investment prediction based on a patchy 30 day stock market record? Or, tell me how your 5 day stock market predictions have been working out? Or is the climate simpler than the stock market and so can be half-accurately modelled 50 years or more? Or perhaps the climate data is much more accurate and comprehensive than the recorded stock market data so that you can predict 50 years or more? Get my point?)
In short, the yeah-sayers often seem to be alarmists with:
a) an economic and/or egotistical stake in convincing people they are right (esp. for academics or politians); or
b) people with a vested interest in the status quo (esp. politicians, corporations, waterfront property owners or backwoods hermit types).
The fact is, the climate may be changing. We will have to adapt and I am sure we will get by. As for fossil fuel use, etc., efficiency can be an end in itself. It does not have to be driven by rampant paranoia.
Enough with the agendas from yeah-sayers, politicians, corporations et al. The climate will change. We don't know if its our fault or not. If there is a "solution", it's a safe bet that we haven't got a clue what it is. Time marches on; things change. Suck it up.
If you still feel a need to preach about the environment, then accept that it is a religion i.e. something you do on faith. If that makes you happy fine. But as with all religions, best to practice it privately lest you hurt someone else with it.
There are interesting projects, yes. But JAXA shows a shocking lack of willingness to share. Case in point: Hayabusa has some excellent shots of the asteroid. So where's the high definition map available for public download? Where's the raw image site (à la JPL's Cassinni) where the public can download the latest processed and unprocessed images? You want publicity, then put your product out there. Show landscapes (real and virtual), named features, etc. In short, make the work as exciting to the public as it is (presumably) to the scientists working on it.
JAXA seems to be keeping all it's data to itself. Great. And so what will make the news? The mission failures. After all, what else is there for the press to work with?
The last shutdown, which prompted a temperature drop of 5C to 10C in western Europe, was probably at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago. There may also have been a slowing of Atlantic circulation during the Little Ice Age, which lasted sporadically from 1300 to about 1850 and created temperatures low enough to freeze the River Thames in London.
But consider:
a) The authors' believe their data is robust. Their sampling rate however is extraordinarily low i.e. 1957, 1981, 1992, and 2004. So there is no idea of whether this fluctuation is unique or cyclical and, if the latter, the frequency of its occurence; b) FTA "Some climate models predict that global warming could lead to such a shutdown later this century."
So, the effect is categorically not understood, but with laughably meagre data a link is pronounced to events 12,000 years ago, bolstered with a guess to a period of recorded history experiencing a "sporadic" Ice Age. This is what passes for science in climatology?! Bunk! Pure bunk!
And don't get me started about climate modelling... oops, too late. There are a lot of models. When the latest ones are introduced, we learn how poor the previous ones were. And models are a really funny beast. That last link reveals that the new model "uses weather data from 1961 to 1985 and models of future weather from 2071 to 2095, which assume a doubling of the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide". Models using models must somehow compound errors, no? Less well known is that since potential variables are so numerous in climate studies, subsets are grouped and modelled linearly (via principal component analysis). This has the effect of reducing the dimension of the problem at the cost of accuracy. The latter is sometimes significant e.g. how many climate processes are linear? Frankly, climate models seem merely to be a way of currying favour with potential sources of funding using pseudo science and fear.
... they just displace the problem. Bio derived energy will not come from First-world waste, it will come from the Third world who will deplete their forests with yet another profit making crop.
Could the principles be used to correct for atmospheric distortion of stellar images in ground-based telescopes? It would seem so if the image was spread over more than a few pixels. Could it also be used to correct for optical flaws in a lense?
... if like Cassini/Huygens, there were regular releases of publicly available imagery (ideally, raw). Look at all the work and publicity that was scored when amateurs were the first to process the publicly released shots of Titan. Instead, JAXA haven't been in the public eye except, seemingly, for the mission's failures! Who's in charge of their public relations?
It is vital for the US military to talk to its submerged nuclear ballistic missile submarines, "boomers" (you'd forgotten about them hadn't you:-) Yes, they are still out there patrolling and for obvious reasons have to stay submerged. A traditional method is via radio at VLF and ELF frequencies as these can penetrate even seawater to useful depths. But antennae at these frequencies are ackwardly long (think miles not feet), and copper wire that long is a problem resistively speaking. But the Soviets discovered that HF beamed into the ionesphere can effectively modulate ionised particles at ELF frequencies. I don't recall the physics as that was someone else's job. So, use ionospheric modulation to generate ELF signals to talk with deployed submerged submarines. Cool, eh? Think this is a crock? Well this tells you the principles are being studied using HAARP. And this tells you it's for talking to boomers.
The jamming theory is useless. You get much better mileage using directed jamming on a missile or by taking out the station communicating with it. Occam's razor, people.
a) Bacterial related oral problems take a while to develop, say longer than it takes to get potentially killed in combat. They can be dealt with after combat even if that takes months;
b) Troop losses to bacterial related oral problems are virtually nil. Exceptions are when the bacteria are assisted by shrapnel or stray bullets;
c) Mind altering drugs are only effective for portions of a day if taken in a dosage that won't risk incapacitation or death.
Conclusion: There's no compelling reason to worry about oral hygiene in combat. But troop motivation via drugs is exceptionally useful esp. when troops are battle weary. However, drugs don't last long enough for extended combat situations since safe/useful dosages are too small. Thus there is a need for a sustained, self-administered drug regimen... say three times a day.
Solution: Get the troops used to chewing the drug-administering item under the guise of some innocuous activity such as oral hygiene. As needs require, secretly substitute the daily ration of hygiene gum with 'motivationally enhanced' gum.
Why not refit old super tankers, aircraft carriers, oil rigs? Why spend time, effort, and money on a new platform (which from the look of the drawing has a long ways to go before being seaworthy)?
Re:Vehicle knowledge ... You an environmentalist?
on
Warm-blooded Fish?
·
· Score: 1
OK. I'll bite on two items (three if you include a suggestion to RTFA).
1) How does knowledge of shark muscle performance in low temp give us insight into vehicle technology? Sharks = organic. Vehicles != organic. You can even argue that the hydrodynamics of sharks aren't particularly relevant since they are necessarily adapted to: eating, hunting, and swinging a tail back and forth. (But you'd be partially wrong because the streamlining does work to some extent even if you replace the tail with a prop.) It's like saying we can build better aircraft by studying bird muscles... it just isn't so.
2) At this site, there is a suggestion that the creatures could be facing endangerment. And yet, these researchers happily killed off a few to draw the conclusion that "The elevated muscle temperature presumably helps the salmon shark survive". So some educated guess work but nothing hard and fast. One can conclude with certaintly, that without the researchers and Japanese fishermen hooking them, they would survive to the limit of their natural lives. Or shall we trot out the old saw about "needs of the many...." Which is a really lame argument. I mean, if it's OK to kill a few in the name of science to possibly benefit humanity, then it is equally OK to kill off a few more to certainly benefit feeding humanity, no?
No. This was simply science answering (or attempting to) a question of curiosity. How do these sharks do what they do when other sharks could not? The importance of that to humans has nothing to do with vehicles. But you could speculate that they were hoping to find something useful and profitable like maybe a protein a drug company might be interested in....
It seems we have been on the cusp of this technology for ever. First LCD screens became cheap, then there were variants on the electronic paper as display, and now this. So all I want is an 8.5"x11" or A4 size thin display on which I can read material loaded from my key drive. I don't need any more functionality than changing pages and maybe a zoom feature.
This technology makes it sound like the only app is to make moving adverts. Why not just sell blank sheets of this stuff and, instead of buying a magazine, the seller just loads the file into your sheet? Almost like publishing on site at the newstand.
No mention of the resolution possible on this stuff. Is it too poor for print?
Since it must be mounted in the clear to ensure it is getting direct path sound, the sensors will be the sniper's first target. The added psychological impact of the troops seeing their sniper protection shot to hell is a sniper's dream. Thats what sniping is all about, sowing fear.
I lived the pithy attitude and failed out in my last year of Engineering all while bitching and complaining about how I had been done wrong. Many years later, after life had shown me that there is no free lunch, anywhere, ever, I returned to school. The same profs were there with the same teaching "skill set" and worse attitudes than ever (some actually remembered me... not in a nice way). Even the classes and building smells were the same which was really unnerving at times. But I worked my ass off and did rather well (got my name on a wall... and I don't mean graffiti), good job, and now I'm working on my doctorate. I didn't magically get brainier; I just did the frickin' work. That's all engineering demands. And well it should. Do you think it was slack English majors that flew us out of the solar system, allowed us to cross the Atlantic in hours, or made the Internet possible? No, Mr. Kern. It was Engineers (and Scientists) working LONG, HARD hours. And they were used to those LONG, HARD hours from years of practice EARNING their degrees. And when they encountered things that they (and others) did not understand, they spent LONG, HARD hours learning it themselves... just as they had in university. That is what an engineering education prepares graduates for.
This doesn't seem likely to go anywhere. It seems reasonable that:
a) Google and the libraries had considered copyright issues very carefully before doing this; and
b) that the offended authors had already tried negotiating with Google.
So, there are probably a battery of high paid Google lawyers who have already determined that Google's actions are legal. Following which Google evidently felt it did not have to negotiate and likely expected a lawsuit to follow. To think otherwise is to assume that Google is run by a bunch of idiots which is very clearly not the case.
The Guild and authors are blowing smoke in that time-honoured American tradition of suing as the last possible recourse when all other avenues for a blatant money grab have failed.
Slashdot Mirror
here
Maybe .doc as well. That way it could capture a slice of the ebook market.
... hence the amazement that the water was at the temperatures that melted the thermometer.
If the case industry has against Pirate Bay were to go public, what would Pirate Bay look like? A group of immature adolescents making sport of mocking authority. Not defenders of freedom, etc. Losing public support means potentially losing whatever legislative support keeps the site running. Is it worth the lame jokes to lose such a site?
So Japan controls cockroaches, then women/people, and now we have sharks and a number of groups around the world that have gained ethical approval to develop implants that can monitor and influence the behaviour of animals, from sharks and tuna to rats and monkeys.
It is easy to decry the abuse of the animals in question.
It is equally easy to see the potential benefits to the relatively small number of humans (globally) who have nerve damage.
But why no hue and cry on the potential abuse of this technology on humans?
Guns, germs, and chemicals may kill you. This can enslave you.
The Blackberry was a working model. The patent on the technology had no working model. So ....
a) researchers wired some rats and made them run up and down a straight run and watched some nerve cells fire;
b) researchers saw the same nerve cells activate in reverse order while the rats rested;
c) researchers speculate either wildly or obviously that the rats are replaying the event and that maybe the rats are mentally replaying the run, and that maybe it would be the same in a maze, and maybe this coincides with dopamine release (not observed or measured), and that if maybe that were so, it would maybe tell us something about memory.
d) researchers are thrilled because this has never been seen before and is what they would expect.
Now what the hell is that? Seeing an as yet unexplained, and previously unexpected, phenomenon and declaring it coincides with expectations based on speculation?
Perhaps the story started off as simply about a new technique that allowed monitoring of individual nerve cells (which is news worthy) and got embellished by the media who couldn't see the value of it.
The conclusion:
"It suggests that those idle times, perhaps spent gazing into space, are actually crucial for our brains to replay, and learn from, recent experiences."
is banal in the extreme. Sports psychologists, for example, call the process "visualization" and it has been a training technique for decades.
A sad commentary on science reporting no matter how you look at it.
It is easy to lose sight of who is responsible to whom and for what.
... 'Presenting research' is the method, not the goal. But the scientist in the article did not present just research. The research was the state of the climate and possible causes. A suggestion for the cure was an opinion.
a) Employer: NASA is "paid by the taxpayer" but is responsible to the people through the government. Strictly speaking the employees really don't have the right to spout their personal opinions unless it is clear and obvious that it is their own opinion. The minute you come out with a personal opinion on government letterhead (figuratively or otherwise) then you are now perceived as presenting the government opinion. And since the government may have to answer to that opinion on your behalf is it surprising that they show a very keen interest in what you might say?;
b) Employee: some of the examples of government interference such as putting "theory" after every occurence of "Big Bang" seem absurdly benign. The "Big Bang" is a theory. If the government is legally embroiled with issues of "theory", such as Intelligent Design, obviously it is only a lawyer away from being told that it is misrepresenting its own theories by not labelling them as such. Instead of viewing this example as a religious zealot trying to stick it to the scientists, maybe it's a case of a bureaucrat being keenly aware of the potential legal ramifications of careless wording; and
c) Responsibility: Don't scientists have a responsibility to think about what their limitations are? A car mechanic providing a recommendation does so with the thorough knowledge of a system that a climatologist, or any scientist doing deep research, does not. Furthermore, scientists and most people in general have little clue how to get their ideas across to the media. This is why governments and companies have Public Relations staff. The latter have a keen knowledge of the impact of communications that is lost on most people. Most accusations of "altering" levied against PR depts that I have personally encountered are cases of technical staff being pedantic, quibbling over nuances of words while the PR folk try to explain that the public/communication target will not understand a "precise" statement.
It is easy to be alarmist but if you start with the hypothesis that the government is populated by mostly good people trying to do a decent job, you can come up with many plausible and valid reasons why some things happen.
And by the way, Progress is the job of a scientist
... I'd like to point out that me and most of my ilk do not deny the climate is changing vis-a-vis the short term historical record. I do question profoundly that the changes represent extremes or that it is human driven. I wonder:
a) at the arrogance that drives the yeah-sayers to believe humanity has such a profound impact on the environment;
b) that the yeah-sayers believe that the impact is controllable when they have scant knowledge of the processes involved (Did you hear the latest news? Plants produce methane. Who knew? I know the climatologists didn't.); and
c) that the yeah-sayers can seriously believe statistically drawn predictions based on an absolute paucity of long term and accurate historical data (Would you make a ten year investment prediction based on a patchy 30 day stock market record? Or, tell me how your 5 day stock market predictions have been working out? Or is the climate simpler than the stock market and so can be half-accurately modelled 50 years or more? Or perhaps the climate data is much more accurate and comprehensive than the recorded stock market data so that you can predict 50 years or more? Get my point?)
In short, the yeah-sayers often seem to be alarmists with:
a) an economic and/or egotistical stake in convincing people they are right (esp. for academics or politians); or
b) people with a vested interest in the status quo (esp. politicians, corporations, waterfront property owners or backwoods hermit types).
The fact is, the climate may be changing. We will have to adapt and I am sure we will get by. As for fossil fuel use, etc., efficiency can be an end in itself. It does not have to be driven by rampant paranoia.
Enough with the agendas from yeah-sayers, politicians, corporations et al. The climate will change. We don't know if its our fault or not. If there is a "solution", it's a safe bet that we haven't got a clue what it is. Time marches on; things change. Suck it up.
If you still feel a need to preach about the environment, then accept that it is a religion i.e. something you do on faith. If that makes you happy fine. But as with all religions, best to practice it privately lest you hurt someone else with it.
So we have two theories:
a) dark matter filaments (modeled on a computer no less). Matter we cannot see; who's existence is contentious, etc.
b) the remnants of a cannibalized galaxy. Solid evidence of this principle abundantly available.
Why leap to the more complicated and, arguably esoteric, explanation?
There are interesting projects, yes. But JAXA shows a shocking lack of willingness to share. Case in point: Hayabusa has some excellent shots of the asteroid. So where's the high definition map available for public download? Where's the raw image site (à la JPL's Cassinni) where the public can download the latest processed and unprocessed images? You want publicity, then put your product out there. Show landscapes (real and virtual), named features, etc. In short, make the work as exciting to the public as it is (presumably) to the scientists working on it.
JAXA seems to be keeping all it's data to itself. Great. And so what will make the news? The mission failures. After all, what else is there for the press to work with?
The closing statement reads as follows:
... oops, too late. There are a lot of models. When the latest ones are introduced, we learn how poor the previous ones were. And models are a really funny beast. That last link reveals that the new model "uses weather data from 1961 to 1985 and models of future weather from 2071 to 2095, which assume a doubling of the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide". Models using models must somehow compound errors, no? Less well known is that since potential variables are so numerous in climate studies, subsets are grouped and modelled linearly (via principal component analysis). This has the effect of reducing the dimension of the problem at the cost of accuracy. The latter is sometimes significant e.g. how many climate processes are linear? Frankly, climate models seem merely to be a way of currying favour with potential sources of funding using pseudo science and fear.
The last shutdown, which prompted a temperature drop of 5C to 10C in western Europe, was probably at the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago. There may also have been a slowing of Atlantic circulation during the Little Ice Age, which lasted sporadically from 1300 to about 1850 and created temperatures low enough to freeze the River Thames in London.
But consider:
a) The authors' believe their data is robust. Their sampling rate however is extraordinarily low i.e. 1957, 1981, 1992, and 2004. So there is no idea of whether this fluctuation is unique or cyclical and, if the latter, the frequency of its occurence;
b) FTA " Some climate models predict that global warming could lead to such a shutdown later this century."
So, the effect is categorically not understood, but with laughably meagre data a link is pronounced to events 12,000 years ago, bolstered with a guess to a period of recorded history experiencing a "sporadic" Ice Age. This is what passes for science in climatology?! Bunk! Pure bunk!
And don't get me started about climate modelling
... they just displace the problem. Bio derived energy will not come from First-world waste, it will come from the Third world who will deplete their forests with yet another profit making crop.
Better put here at Forests paying the price for biofuels.
A 20 kW microwave radiator in every home?! And people were worried about the effects of cell phones and overhead transmission wires.
Could the principles be used to correct for atmospheric distortion of stellar images in ground-based telescopes? It would seem so if the image was spread over more than a few pixels. Could it also be used to correct for optical flaws in a lense?
... if like Cassini/Huygens, there were regular releases of publicly available imagery (ideally, raw). Look at all the work and publicity that was scored when amateurs were the first to process the publicly released shots of Titan. Instead, JAXA haven't been in the public eye except, seemingly, for the mission's failures! Who's in charge of their public relations?
It is vital for the US military to talk to its submerged nuclear ballistic missile submarines, "boomers" (you'd forgotten about them hadn't you :-) Yes, they are still out there patrolling and for obvious reasons have to stay submerged. A traditional method is via radio at VLF and ELF frequencies as these can penetrate even seawater to useful depths. But antennae at these frequencies are ackwardly long (think miles not feet), and copper wire that long is a problem resistively speaking. But the Soviets discovered that HF beamed into the ionesphere can effectively modulate ionised particles at ELF frequencies. I don't recall the physics as that was someone else's job. So, use ionospheric modulation to generate ELF signals to talk with deployed submerged submarines. Cool, eh? Think this is a crock? Well this tells you the principles are being studied using HAARP. And this tells you it's for talking to boomers.
And this is the HAARP site.
The jamming theory is useless. You get much better mileage using directed jamming on a missile or by taking out the station communicating with it. Occam's razor, people.
a) Bacterial related oral problems take a while to develop, say longer than it takes to get potentially killed in combat. They can be dealt with after combat even if that takes months;
... say three times a day.
b) Troop losses to bacterial related oral problems are virtually nil. Exceptions are when the bacteria are assisted by shrapnel or stray bullets;
c) Mind altering drugs are only effective for portions of a day if taken in a dosage that won't risk incapacitation or death.
Conclusion: There's no compelling reason to worry about oral hygiene in combat. But troop motivation via drugs is exceptionally useful esp. when troops are battle weary. However, drugs don't last long enough for extended combat situations since safe/useful dosages are too small. Thus there is a need for a sustained, self-administered drug regimen
Solution: Get the troops used to chewing the drug-administering item under the guise of some innocuous activity such as oral hygiene. As needs require, secretly substitute the daily ration of hygiene gum with 'motivationally enhanced' gum.
This is only partly a joke.
Why not refit old super tankers, aircraft carriers, oil rigs? Why spend time, effort, and money on a new platform (which from the look of the drawing has a long ways to go before being seaworthy)?
OK. I'll bite on two items (three if you include a suggestion to RTFA).
... it just isn't so.
...." Which is a really lame argument. I mean, if it's OK to kill a few in the name of science to possibly benefit humanity, then it is equally OK to kill off a few more to certainly benefit feeding humanity, no?
....
1) How does knowledge of shark muscle performance in low temp give us insight into vehicle technology? Sharks = organic. Vehicles != organic. You can even argue that the hydrodynamics of sharks aren't particularly relevant since they are necessarily adapted to: eating, hunting, and swinging a tail back and forth. (But you'd be partially wrong because the streamlining does work to some extent even if you replace the tail with a prop.) It's like saying we can build better aircraft by studying bird muscles
2) At this site, there is a suggestion that the creatures could be facing endangerment. And yet, these researchers happily killed off a few to draw the conclusion that "The elevated muscle temperature presumably helps the salmon shark survive". So some educated guess work but nothing hard and fast. One can conclude with certaintly, that without the researchers and Japanese fishermen hooking them, they would survive to the limit of their natural lives. Or shall we trot out the old saw about "needs of the many
No. This was simply science answering (or attempting to) a question of curiosity. How do these sharks do what they do when other sharks could not? The importance of that to humans has nothing to do with vehicles. But you could speculate that they were hoping to find something useful and profitable like maybe a protein a drug company might be interested in
It seems we have been on the cusp of this technology for ever. First LCD screens became cheap, then there were variants on the electronic paper as display, and now this. So all I want is an 8.5"x11" or A4 size thin display on which I can read material loaded from my key drive. I don't need any more functionality than changing pages and maybe a zoom feature.
This technology makes it sound like the only app is to make moving adverts. Why not just sell blank sheets of this stuff and, instead of buying a magazine, the seller just loads the file into your sheet? Almost like publishing on site at the newstand.
No mention of the resolution possible on this stuff. Is it too poor for print?
Since it must be mounted in the clear to ensure it is getting direct path sound, the sensors will be the sniper's first target. The added psychological impact of the troops seeing their sniper protection shot to hell is a sniper's dream. Thats what sniping is all about, sowing fear.
I lived the pithy attitude and failed out in my last year of Engineering all while bitching and complaining about how I had been done wrong. Many years later, after life had shown me that there is no free lunch, anywhere, ever, I returned to school. The same profs were there with the same teaching "skill set" and worse attitudes than ever (some actually remembered me ... not in a nice way). Even the classes and building smells were the same which was really unnerving at times. But I worked my ass off and did rather well (got my name on a wall ... and I don't mean graffiti), good job, and now I'm working on my doctorate. I didn't magically get brainier; I just did the frickin' work. That's all engineering demands. And well it should. Do you think it was slack English majors that flew us out of the solar system, allowed us to cross the Atlantic in hours, or made the Internet possible? No, Mr. Kern. It was Engineers (and Scientists) working LONG, HARD hours. And they were used to those LONG, HARD hours from years of practice EARNING their degrees. And when they encountered things that they (and others) did not understand, they spent LONG, HARD hours learning it themselves ... just as they had in university. That is what an engineering education prepares graduates for.
... influences the design of pocket things e.g. pocket radios, pocket mp3 players, pocket protectors.
This doesn't seem likely to go anywhere. It seems reasonable that:
a) Google and the libraries had considered copyright issues very carefully before doing this; and
b) that the offended authors had already tried negotiating with Google.
So, there are probably a battery of high paid Google lawyers who have already determined that Google's actions are legal. Following which Google evidently felt it did not have to negotiate and likely expected a lawsuit to follow. To think otherwise is to assume that Google is run by a bunch of idiots which is very clearly not the case.
The Guild and authors are blowing smoke in that time-honoured American tradition of suing as the last possible recourse when all other avenues for a blatant money grab have failed.