So there are more germs on my keyboard and mouse than on the toliet seat -- is that a problem? I'm the only one typically using my computer, so the germs are probably mine. I'm not likely to get sick from them since I put them there in the first place.
If the RF lights get shielding on them then we don't have to worry about them interfering with network devices too much.
Then again, if they DON'T get shielding they'll never sell. Try telling your employees that you are going to replace all the lights in their workspace with lights that spew radiation at the same frequency that their microwave uses, but without the shielding! Sure, the output would be WAY below a microwave, but who wants to sit under a bank of them eight or ten hours a day from now until retirement?
My first opinion of this hypothesis is that it is a big stretch. First, a little background.
A very massive star has a very massive gravitational field. Through its lifespan the star does not collapse under its own weight due to the ongoing fusion reaction which powers all stars. When the nuclear fuel finally runs out, the star begins to collapse inward. (For those of an astronomical bent, yes I am skipping over some details as to the various stages of fusion that grant temporary repreives to the collapse).
As a star collapses, the atoms that make up the star are packed more and more tightly together. If the star is massive enough, the electrons and protons are finally merged together to form neutrons. The neutrons then pack together more and more tightly until the repulsive force between the neutrons prevents further collapse (for stars not quite massive enough to become black holes) or the neutrons themselves crush in upon each other into even more degenerate states of matter. As far as we know, once you pass this point there is NO OTHER REPULSIVE FORCE available to keep the collapse in check. The star collapses all the way down to a single mathmatical point.
The second bit of background we need is an explanation of Bose-Einstein Condensates. First, you need to know that all particles can be described as waves. In the macroscopic world in which we live our daily lives, the waves are such tiny little packets that we don't perceive them as anything more than particles. However, on the microscopic level, particles begin to really demonstrate just how wave-like they can be. When a group of atoms is collectively cooled down to very close to absolute zero, the behavior of the individual atoms become linked together and they begin to act a single atom. (The wave functions describing the individual particles merge). It is a funky-cool state of matter that is regularly used now in a range of physics experiments.
The hypothesis in the article on black holes is that spacetime itself can undergo a "phase change" not unlike the way that matter can go from solid to liquid to gas -- or even (in labs) to a Bose-Einstein condensate.
The important thing to note here is that (a) no one has ever seen a phase change in the fabric of spacetime (I'm not sure the concept even makes sense, personally). (b) The authors are NOT saying that the black hole's stellar material BECOMES a Bose-Einstein condensate -- they are saying the the fabric of spacetime itself becomes the "spacetime-equivalent" of a Bose-Einstein condensate (whatever that would be!).
My feeling is that while it *could* be the case, basically they are trying to dream up a totally hypothetical new phenomenon (phase changes for spacetime) to find some way to get rid of black holes in physical theory. I don't see that the new phenomenon has any grounding in theory or observation -- it's strictly hypothesized for the end result -- and is therefore very unlikely to be true.
Now, that's NOT to say it CAN'T be true. However, I expect their may be dozens to hundreds of other such hypothetical creations designed to counter the infinite collapse that supposedly occurs in black holes -- the concept of a black hole is "offensive" in physics because you end up with a big "divide by zero" error in the universe. We do, however, have good evidence for the existence of black holes, so no matter how much physicists hate what they do to the math, we may have to simply accept them.
This may come as a bit of a surprise, but Apple hardware just isn't that expensive for what you get. It's just that you tend to get a really well-balanced, complete system. Most "bargain-box" PC's are crippled by poor system design. In terms of day-to-day performance, it's hard for me to tell my Dell Optiplex GX240 (1.7 GHz P4) from my custom-built 800MHz P3 at home. Our department got the Dell really cheaply, though, so I can't complain about the relatively poor performance.
To fairly evaluate the price Apple is charging, why not compare more equivalent hardware? I priced out a IBM ThinkPad T23 vs. an Apple PowerBook a few days ago. The high end T23 sports a 1.2 GHz Pentium THREE processor, 256MB RAM, 60GB HDD, 14.1 inch display,10/100 Mb networking, and 16MB video RAM. The cost on IBM's web store is $3,599.00 The high end Apple PowerBook "ultimate" model has a 667 MHz G4 processor, 1 GB of RAM, 48 GB HDD, 16 MB video RAM, Gigabit networking, wireless networking and a 15.2 inch display). It retails for $3,699.00. Feature-wise, my personal opinion is that the PowerBook is more "loaded" than the ThinkPad. However, the cost difference between the two is less than 3%. Looks to me like the Apple price is very competitive.
Likewise, if you look at the extra $100 Apple announced as an increase in the price of iMacs, you still get a great system for the cost. Sure, you can find "cheapo" PC boxes for less, but you get less computer as well. Apple doesn't market "discount" computers. Just because the iMac is the lowest end system Apple makes you shouldn't compare it to the lowest end PC available. The two are in different classes. Compare the iMac to a comparably-built PC and I think you'll find that Apple's prices remain quite attractive.
In theory, using radiation to sterilize tsetse flies is much safer than hitting them with pesticides (which hit everything else in the ecosystem at the same time). However, one risk exists that needs to be recognized: failed sterilizations. If we assume that 99.9% of all tsetse flies irradiated are successfully sterilized, and if we assume that we irradiate 1,000,000 flies, then we have 1000 flies that are still capable of reproduction, but which have likely sustained genetic damage due to the irradiation. That means you've released 999,000 sterile flies into the environment, but you've also released 1,000 flies that may produce true mutant offspring.
The agricultural industry has done the same type of thing for decades to develop new plant varieties. Sure, a big percentage of irradiated plants may not produce offspring. Then again, those that do may have "interesting" mutations...
That said, I think this is a risk/benefit situation which does come down on the side of the benefits. Pesticides are really a Bad Thing by comparison. Of course, after all is said and done and I'm staring down hyperintelligent mutants I may reverse my stand on that...
Actually, the speed of light is very much used as the constant around which time is measured. It's too much discussion to handle in a slashdot comment, so check out this page on the subject: The Light Clock
This technology appears to be some I've read about previously (as far back as 98). You can see the
Los Alamos press release
or an
ABC News article (with a pic). Both give a little more background and tech info on the cells.
A think it is an accurate statement. Linux in general IS an alternative to Windows and MacOS. Certainly the systems have differing capabilities, but just as you named a couple of things that Linux may not do that Windows or Macs do, that doesn't mean the reverse isn't also true. There are lots of things I can do on my Linux box that I can't AFFORD to do from Windows. I make my graphics for my web page in the Gimp -- what dabbler could afford to buy Photoshop? Likewise, I can run my own Apache web server to host my page if I want -- with the ability to do gobs of CGI scripts to boot. Running MS's personal webserver on Win 9x is a poor alternative to that. The point I'm making is that the OS's are all ALTERNATIVES to one another. The best choice for you is the one that has the most functionality FOR YOU.
A bicycle is an alternative to a car. No, a bicycle can't go 70 mph down the freeway. Then again, my car can't take me offroad through the woods. They are both forms of transportation, but the have different capabilities.
I've been running 8.1 RC-1 for about a week. Yep, I've had a few bugs (the graphical login makes me login TWICE before it lets me in on my ThinkPad). However, KDE 2.2.1 is sweet, running XFree86 4.x.x is a HUGE improvement, and the whole thing feels more integrated than other distros I've dealt with such as RedHat (i.e.: the software packages are more likely to "play nice" with each other). Yes, it IS easier for novices to use, but that doesn't make it any less powerful than the distros that are a pain to install, configure, and maintain. Contrary to the view of some folks, Mandrake is not producing a "beginner's version". Hats off to Mandrake for a great distro!
and that the advertisers really want our attention? How else can it be that Star Trek Enterprise is in the same time slot as Junkyard Wars?!?!? (Not to mention Good Eats for those of us that like a little science with our food). Add my fondness for the Amazing Race (okay, a weakness, I admit it!) and it looks like I need to buy a second VCR...
I searched for ages for a computer desk big enough and solid enough and affordable enough. No luck. So, I went to an unfinished furniture store and bought a dining room table. Long enough for all my computer stuff PLUS a TV/VCR. Deep enough so that I can stick papers I'm dealing with in front of my keyboard. $100 for the table. $10 to polyurethane it (why stain it? -- natural wood colors look great).
incidents.org is currently showing 115,000 infected machines (when they're showing anything at all -- really hard to get to the site). I saw nothing all day but have had 5 probes against port 80 (http) in the last hour according to my firewall. 4 appear to be from nameservers and 1 looks like a FIREWALL! Oh, the irony...
Actually, I've already been "upgraded" by a computer. My vision was 20/425. Thanks to a computer system that reshaped by corneas in two 39 second sets of shaped laser pulses my vision is now 20/15. No human could have done it. Sometimes trusting the machine is awfully worthwhile!
Slashdot Mirror
So there are more germs on my keyboard and mouse than on the toliet seat -- is that a problem? I'm the only one typically using my computer, so the germs are probably mine. I'm not likely to get sick from them since I put them there in the first place.
If the RF lights get shielding on them then we don't have to worry about them interfering with network devices too much.
Then again, if they DON'T get shielding they'll never sell. Try telling your employees that you are going to replace all the lights in their workspace with lights that spew radiation at the same frequency that their microwave uses, but without the shielding! Sure, the output would be WAY below a microwave, but who wants to sit under a bank of them eight or ten hours a day from now until retirement?
My first opinion of this hypothesis is that it is a big stretch. First, a little background.
A very massive star has a very massive gravitational field. Through its lifespan the star does not collapse under its own weight due to the ongoing fusion reaction which powers all stars. When the nuclear fuel finally runs out, the star begins to collapse inward. (For those of an astronomical bent, yes I am skipping over some details as to the various stages of fusion that grant temporary repreives to the collapse).
As a star collapses, the atoms that make up the star are packed more and more tightly together. If the star is massive enough, the electrons and protons are finally merged together to form neutrons. The neutrons then pack together more and more tightly until the repulsive force between the neutrons prevents further collapse (for stars not quite massive enough to become black holes) or the neutrons themselves crush in upon each other into even more degenerate states of matter. As far as we know, once you pass this point there is NO OTHER REPULSIVE FORCE available to keep the collapse in check. The star collapses all the way down to a single mathmatical point.
The second bit of background we need is an explanation of Bose-Einstein Condensates. First, you need to know that all particles can be described as waves. In the macroscopic world in which we live our daily lives, the waves are such tiny little packets that we don't perceive them as anything more than particles. However, on the microscopic level, particles begin to really demonstrate just how wave-like they can be. When a group of atoms is collectively cooled down to very close to absolute zero, the behavior of the individual atoms become linked together and they begin to act a single atom. (The wave functions describing the individual particles merge). It is a funky-cool state of matter that is regularly used now in a range of physics experiments.
The hypothesis in the article on black holes is that spacetime itself can undergo a "phase change" not unlike the way that matter can go from solid to liquid to gas -- or even (in labs) to a Bose-Einstein condensate.
The important thing to note here is that
(a) no one has ever seen a phase change in the fabric of spacetime (I'm not sure the concept even makes sense, personally).
(b) The authors are NOT saying that the black hole's stellar material BECOMES a Bose-Einstein condensate -- they are saying the the fabric of spacetime itself becomes the "spacetime-equivalent" of a Bose-Einstein condensate (whatever that would be!).
My feeling is that while it *could* be the case, basically they are trying to dream up a totally hypothetical new phenomenon (phase changes for spacetime) to find some way to get rid of black holes in physical theory. I don't see that the new phenomenon has any grounding in theory or observation -- it's strictly hypothesized for the end result -- and is therefore very unlikely to be true.
Now, that's NOT to say it CAN'T be true. However, I expect their may be dozens to hundreds of other such hypothetical creations designed to counter the infinite collapse that supposedly occurs in black holes -- the concept of a black hole is "offensive" in physics because you end up with a big "divide by zero" error in the universe. We do, however, have good evidence for the existence of black holes, so no matter how much physicists hate what they do to the math, we may have to simply accept them.
This may come as a bit of a surprise, but Apple hardware just isn't that expensive for what you get. It's just that you tend to get a really well-balanced, complete system. Most "bargain-box" PC's are crippled by poor system design. In terms of day-to-day performance, it's hard for me to tell my Dell Optiplex GX240 (1.7 GHz P4) from my custom-built 800MHz P3 at home. Our department got the Dell really cheaply, though, so I can't complain about the relatively poor performance.
To fairly evaluate the price Apple is charging, why not compare more equivalent hardware? I priced out a IBM ThinkPad T23 vs. an Apple PowerBook a few days ago. The high end T23 sports a 1.2 GHz Pentium THREE processor, 256MB RAM, 60GB HDD, 14.1 inch display,10/100 Mb networking, and 16MB video RAM. The cost on IBM's web store is $3,599.00
The high end Apple PowerBook "ultimate" model has a 667 MHz G4 processor, 1 GB of RAM, 48 GB HDD, 16 MB video RAM, Gigabit networking, wireless networking and a 15.2 inch display). It retails for $3,699.00.
Feature-wise, my personal opinion is that the PowerBook is more "loaded" than the ThinkPad. However, the cost difference between the two is less than 3%.
Looks to me like the Apple price is very competitive.
Likewise, if you look at the extra $100 Apple announced as an increase in the price of iMacs, you still get a great system for the cost. Sure, you can find "cheapo" PC boxes for less, but you get less computer as well. Apple doesn't market "discount" computers. Just because the iMac is the lowest end system Apple makes you shouldn't compare it to the lowest end PC available. The two are in different classes. Compare the iMac to a comparably-built PC and I think you'll find that Apple's prices remain quite attractive.
In theory, using radiation to sterilize tsetse flies is much safer than hitting them with pesticides (which hit everything else in the ecosystem at the same time). However, one risk exists that needs to be recognized: failed sterilizations. If we assume that 99.9% of all tsetse flies irradiated are successfully sterilized, and if we assume that we irradiate 1,000,000 flies, then we have 1000 flies that are still capable of reproduction, but which have likely sustained genetic damage due to the irradiation. That means you've released 999,000 sterile flies into the environment, but you've also released 1,000 flies that may produce true mutant offspring.
The agricultural industry has done the same type of thing for decades to develop new plant varieties. Sure, a big percentage of irradiated plants may not produce offspring. Then again, those that do may have "interesting" mutations...
That said, I think this is a risk/benefit situation which does come down on the side of the benefits. Pesticides are really a Bad Thing by comparison. Of course, after all is said and done and I'm staring down hyperintelligent mutants I may reverse my stand on that...
NASA? Aren't you talking about the programmers that lost a Mars probe becaused they mixed Metric and US measurements in the navigation system?
Feet? Meters? What's the difference???
Actually, the speed of light is very much used as the constant around which time is measured. It's too much discussion to handle in a slashdot comment, so check out this page on the subject: The Light Clock
This technology appears to be some I've read about previously (as far back as 98). You can see the Los Alamos press release or an ABC News article (with a pic). Both give a little more background and tech info on the cells.
A think it is an accurate statement. Linux in general IS an alternative to Windows and MacOS. Certainly the systems have differing capabilities, but just as you named a couple of things that Linux may not do that Windows or Macs do, that doesn't mean the reverse isn't also true. There are lots of things I can do on my Linux box that I can't AFFORD to do from Windows. I make my graphics for my web page in the Gimp -- what dabbler could afford to buy Photoshop? Likewise, I can run my own Apache web server to host my page if I want -- with the ability to do gobs of CGI scripts to boot. Running MS's personal webserver on Win 9x is a poor alternative to that. The point I'm making is that the OS's are all ALTERNATIVES to one another. The best choice for you is the one that has the most functionality FOR YOU.
A bicycle is an alternative to a car. No, a bicycle can't go 70 mph down the freeway. Then again, my car can't take me offroad through the woods. They are both forms of transportation, but the have different capabilities.
I've been running 8.1 RC-1 for about a week. Yep, I've had a few bugs (the graphical login makes me login TWICE before it lets me in on my ThinkPad). However, KDE 2.2.1 is sweet, running XFree86 4.x.x is a HUGE improvement, and the whole thing feels more integrated than other distros I've dealt with such as RedHat (i.e.: the software packages are more likely to "play nice" with each other). Yes, it IS easier for novices to use, but that doesn't make it any less powerful than the distros that are a pain to install, configure, and maintain. Contrary to the view of some folks, Mandrake is not producing a "beginner's version". Hats off to Mandrake for a great distro!
and that the advertisers really want our attention? How else can it be that Star Trek Enterprise is in the same time slot as Junkyard Wars?!?!? (Not to mention Good Eats for those of us that like a little science with our food). Add my fondness for the Amazing Race (okay, a weakness, I admit it!) and it looks like I need to buy a second VCR...
I searched for ages for a computer desk big enough and solid enough and affordable enough. No luck. So, I went to an unfinished furniture store and bought a dining room table. Long enough for all my computer stuff PLUS a TV/VCR. Deep enough so that I can stick papers I'm dealing with in front of my keyboard. $100 for the table. $10 to polyurethane it (why stain it? -- natural wood colors look great).
incidents.org is currently showing 115,000 infected machines (when they're showing anything at all -- really hard to get to the site). I saw nothing all day but have had 5 probes against port 80 (http) in the last hour according to my firewall. 4 appear to be from nameservers and 1 looks like a FIREWALL! Oh, the irony...
Actually, I've already been "upgraded" by a computer. My vision was 20/425. Thanks to a computer system that reshaped by corneas in two 39 second sets of shaped laser pulses my vision is now 20/15. No human could have done it. Sometimes trusting the machine is awfully worthwhile!