...whom my dad heard, on a nationally-televised golf game, when he missed a putt, say, "Goddamned fucking day!" under his breath. It's still a catch-phrase to us. So based on that criterion alone, I *like* Zoeller. Well, as much as one can like a golfer at all.;)
As far as I can tell from the article (hah!), the flow-sensors aren't new, though they may be uniquely orientable with applied magnetic fields. Really, this just looks (to me) as though it's a low-frequency linear acoustic array, and those have been used for a LONG time for this sort of thing. It seems to me that the individual sensors might be what are actually of interest.
This energy need not be heat energy and can easily be kinetic energy - the mechanism that's used by the vapuorisers you can easily buy at the pharmacy.
Ah, but "heat" is just the name we give to kinetic energy where we've neglected to keep track of the particles' *directions* of movement and just have a good idea of their average *speeds*. It's really just a question of the scale at which you can afford to keep track of velocities accurately.
I would second the recommendation of Kaspersky (if you want to pay for an all-in-one system scanner and software firewall). If you want to go for the free stuff, Avast and AVG have both proven to be fine for me, along with a ZoneAlarm or Comodo firewall.
The other poster in this thread level said that Kaspersky was a resource hog. I've never found that (except that big downloads on broadband can be made slower by Kaspersky doing its scanning during the download). Plus, its definitions are updated every couple of hours.
I used to use Panda as an all-in-one program, and it worked fine, but it ate up far too much of my RAM.
... just remember that if you mod something "flamebait" in the threads for this particular submission, they should automatically also be modded "insightful".
Not much chance getting away with calling a Glenn Gould recording your own.
Just get in the habit of humming along with your playing, quite loudly at times, off-key. All that's left is learning to play the pieces gorgeously and with deep, deep feeling. Should be a good project for the weekend.
The vast bulk of those with severe autism don't have any redeeming features due to autism. I have an cousin (in-law) who is essentially a 4 year old in a young man's body. He requires constant care, and that care isn't joy on earth - imagine trying to get a 4 year old to do something they don't want to do, then give that four year old the size and strength of a 20 year old man.
I think you've just described about 70% of us reading slashdot. Except for the "strength" bit.
Phew! Upon first reading that headline, I got an image of disembodied bits, growing ever larger, shuffling closer inexorably. I was about ready to look for a shotgun, or at least a shovel.
I can assure you that Taleyarkhan is *not* stupid. The problem is, his main (or at least one of the originals) detractor is Seth Putterman, who is also decidedly *not* stupid. This is one of the few issues I feel a little more familiarity with than most slashdot readers, and nothing in this case is as clear-cut as "he's obviously dumb or a liar".
First, the article title is VERY misleading. As others have pointed out, the question at hand is whether sonoluminescence can lead to fusion. In some peoples' minds, this is "cold" fusion, because the whole damned apparatus doesn't have to be a plasma. However, where the fusion is claimed to be taking place (in the middle of tremendously cavitating bubbles) *IS* in a plasma state (at least for part of an acoustic cycle). Thus, this might be better termed "locally hot" fusion or something. Or just "sonofusion", which everyone in the field seems to understand.
Second, the New Scientist blurb is interesting in that Rusi seems to have been cleared of scientific fraud. The question, if I remember correctly, was whether the neutrons he was seeing were due to poor experimental techniques, contamination (accidental or purposeful), or simply weren't there in the first place. This blurb SEEMS to clear him of accusations of purposeful contamination and just making up the existence of neutrons. However, it doesn't mean that they were really there, and certainly not that he's really found thermal neutrons from fusion in his experiments. THAT will take a whole lot more "confirmation".
(IAAP, but haven't been following this conflict closely. The last I paid attention was at the ASA meeting last December in Hawai'i. So I'm sure someone will correct my--- inadvertent---mistakes. This is, after all, Slashdot.)
Slashdot Mirror
...whom my dad heard, on a nationally-televised golf game, when he missed a putt, say, "Goddamned fucking day!" under his breath. It's still a catch-phrase to us. So based on that criterion alone, I *like* Zoeller. Well, as much as one can like a golfer at all. ;)
Your post would be more comprehensible if there was a word between "beautiful" and the excalamtion point.
;)
Must be that damned slashdot filter
As far as I can tell from the article (hah!), the flow-sensors aren't new, though they may be uniquely orientable with applied magnetic fields. Really, this just looks (to me) as though it's a low-frequency linear acoustic array, and those have been used for a LONG time for this sort of thing. It seems to me that the individual sensors might be what are actually of interest.
Exactly. You don't see terrorist bombings in Norway, because Norway isn't sticking their collective noses in other peoples' business.
I thought it was because of the beautiful Fnords!
Wait... the laptop came back with 20 "rap songs" which were completely and utterly unintelligible...?
Ah. A vast improvement over the usual, then.
I, for one, welcome our virginal slashdot, Beowulf-ignorant readers!
This energy need not be heat energy and can easily be kinetic energy - the mechanism that's used by the vapuorisers you can easily buy at the pharmacy.
Ah, but "heat" is just the name we give to kinetic energy where we've neglected to keep track of the particles' *directions* of movement and just have a good idea of their average *speeds*. It's really just a question of the scale at which you can afford to keep track of velocities accurately.
I would second the recommendation of Kaspersky (if you want to pay for an all-in-one system scanner and software firewall). If you want to go for the free stuff, Avast and AVG have both proven to be fine for me, along with a ZoneAlarm or Comodo firewall.
The other poster in this thread level said that Kaspersky was a resource hog. I've never found that (except that big downloads on broadband can be made slower by Kaspersky doing its scanning during the download). Plus, its definitions are updated every couple of hours.
I used to use Panda as an all-in-one program, and it worked fine, but it ate up far too much of my RAM.
... just remember that if you mod something "flamebait" in the threads for this particular submission, they should automatically also be modded "insightful".
That's all great, until I go out in the morning and find that the damned raccoons have eaten through my gas tank and drunk all my biofuel. Varmints!
Except she requires a MTBF of more than 3 seconds. Sorry dude.
You call that failure?!? I'd call it success.
Not much chance getting away with calling a Glenn Gould recording your own.
Just get in the habit of humming along with your playing, quite loudly at times, off-key. All that's left is learning to play the pieces gorgeously and with deep, deep feeling. Should be a good project for the weekend.
[...]when you had no expectation that there even was a dupe.
This is slashdot. We're trained to be alert to those all the time.
but didn't she play publicly? Be kinda hard to fake that :)
Meh. We're slashdotters. How the hell do WE know if a woman is faking something?
The vast bulk of those with severe autism don't have any redeeming features due to autism. I have an cousin (in-law) who is essentially a 4 year old in a young man's body. He requires constant care, and that care isn't joy on earth - imagine trying to get a 4 year old to do something they don't want to do, then give that four year old the size and strength of a 20 year old man.
I think you've just described about 70% of us reading slashdot. Except for the "strength" bit.
New Jersey is also the state with the most Nobel prize laureates (although, I'm not sure about that now, since a few died).
You'd think they'd have figured that little bit out by now.
... definitely, definitely.
It's not misleading if you have a proper handle on the English language. You were thinking of "Regrown body parts getting closer all the time"
Ah, yes. That totally deunobfuscated it for me. It's my damned shovels I want proper handles on, more now than ever.
Phew! Upon first reading that headline, I got an image of disembodied bits, growing ever larger, shuffling closer inexorably. I was about ready to look for a shotgun, or at least a shovel.
I won't believe it until someone releases a series of videos in which a lab-coated dude asks "Will it Render?".
I can assure you that Taleyarkhan is *not* stupid. The problem is, his main (or at least one of the originals) detractor is Seth Putterman, who is also decidedly *not* stupid. This is one of the few issues I feel a little more familiarity with than most slashdot readers, and nothing in this case is as clear-cut as "he's obviously dumb or a liar".
First, the article title is VERY misleading. As others have pointed out, the question at hand is whether sonoluminescence can lead to fusion. In some peoples' minds, this is "cold" fusion, because the whole damned apparatus doesn't have to be a plasma. However, where the fusion is claimed to be taking place (in the middle of tremendously cavitating bubbles) *IS* in a plasma state (at least for part of an acoustic cycle). Thus, this might be better termed "locally hot" fusion or something. Or just "sonofusion", which everyone in the field seems to understand.
Second, the New Scientist blurb is interesting in that Rusi seems to have been cleared of scientific fraud. The question, if I remember correctly, was whether the neutrons he was seeing were due to poor experimental techniques, contamination (accidental or purposeful), or simply weren't there in the first place. This blurb SEEMS to clear him of accusations of purposeful contamination and just making up the existence of neutrons. However, it doesn't mean that they were really there, and certainly not that he's really found thermal neutrons from fusion in his experiments. THAT will take a whole lot more "confirmation".
(IAAP, but haven't been following this conflict closely. The last I paid attention was at the ASA meeting last December in Hawai'i. So I'm sure someone will correct my--- inadvertent---mistakes. This is, after all, Slashdot.)