1:1 | Daq the tagh joH'a' { Note: After "
joH'a'," the Hebrew ghajtaH the cha'
letters "Aleph Tav" (the wa'Dich je
last letters vo' the 1:1 Hebrew alphabet) as a grammatical marker. }
created the chal je the tera'. 1:2 | DaH the tera' ghaHta' formless
je empty. HurghtaHghach ghaHta'
Daq the surface vo' the deep. joH'a'
qa' ghaHta' hovering Dung the surface
vo' the 1:2 bIQmey. 1:3 | joH'a' ja'ta', " chaw' pa' taH
wov," je pa' ghaHta' wov. 1:4 | joH'a' leghta' the wov, je leghta'
vetlh 'oH ghaHta' QaQ. joH'a' divided
the wov vo' the HurghtaHghach. 1:5 | joH'a' ja' the wov " jaj," je
the HurghtaHghach ghaH ja' " ram."
pa' ghaHta' evening je pa' ghaHta'
po, wa' jaj.
There is a great deal of evidence to show that ozone at the earth's surface can harm lung function and irritate the respiratory system. Ozone has been found to convert cholesterol in the blood stream to plaque (which causes hardening and narrowing of arteries). This cholesterol product has also been implicated in Alzheimer's disease, suggesting a link between the inflammatory response associated with head injury and Alzheimer's. Air quality guidelines such as those from the World Health Organization are based on detailed studies of what levels can cause measurable health effects.
That's why. If it can oxidise things rapidly and lyse bacteria, I don't really want to breathe much of it.
The lower the temperature of the metal, the closer the free electrons get to the radioactive nuclei. These electrons accelerate positively charged particles towards the nuclei, thereby increasing the probability of fusion reactions.
Guess what? The quote above is from the actual article and would have told you that your post was irrelevant. Closer free electrons = more strong/weak nuclear interaction.
Is this wise? Decreasing the half-life means increasing the radioactivity. Given the option of living near a nuclear waste site and living near the lab where this is performed, I'd choose the former....
You're right. But (as other posters have said) it is [probably] a good tradeoff. In my laboratory, we use ozone to purify water (read: kill bad things therein). It's nasty stuff, but it's so reactive (therefore lethal to buggies) that it disappears really fast. We used to use chlorine, which wasn't nearly so nasty, but which stuck around for much, much longer than the ozone. If you can deal with the reactivity during the worst of the reaction (at the very beginning), then you're pretty much home-free. Constant exposure to low-level chemicals (or radioactivity) which you might not know about is most likely much worse than very quick exposure to high levels of the same stuff which you DO know about.
Sure glad it's got that yellow bar across the front of it for safety, just in case people can't see the freaking FLAMES and SMOKE, can't smell the FLESH, and can't hear the ROAR and the SCREAMING.
Part of the trouble is that these things are NOT stationary. There's only once in a long time that all of the waves produced by those actuators end up forming the characters they want them to, AND all the rest of the surface is smooth. And that can only be done with some sophisticated feedback as to what waves are present. I haven't read their paper, but I suspect they either sense some inductances at the edge of the tank, or do some fancy laser-scanning of the surface. I can easily see incorporating the continually-changing conditions into the calculations as taking a long time. And cylindrical Bessel functions are not so easily precomputed if you need 50 of them at a particular time. I'd think the easiest way to do that is to set up 50 analog circuits with the appropriate parameters and continuously feed in the water heights along the edge of the tank.
For applications... I can't answer this in full, since part of my research is sort of related. But for detecting things buried in the seafloor, ripples on the seafloor do some amazing things to signals. Having a reliable way to set up such ripples in the laboratory is very useful.
Not necessarily arbitrary. The last I knew (and this was quite a while ago, as burgeoning physical theories go), there are four main categories into which systems are classified: Two of them are relatively "boring" from a dynamics point of view, as they correspond to systems which are pretty much locked into static configurations. One of the remaining categories is interesting, but nearly "too interesting", because the behavior there is chaotic, in a specific mathematical and dynamics sense. The remaining category is fabulously interesting, because although systems lying within it evince complex behavior, they can be extremely simple to explain, and there's NOT necessarily "sensitive dependence on the initial conditions". This is the regime in which interconnectedness (maybe not TOO much, as more than, say, two connections per node can lead to chaotic behavior) can lead to feedbacks which make the system extremely robust and responsive to outside signals, but it doesn't fly apart into unpredictability.
Some systems can easily show all four of these different categories just by adjusting ONE parameter (connectedness in networking, say, or an external magnetic field in the case of many Ising-type models). "Simplicity" might fall in one of the two "boring" categories.
Slashdot Mirror
1:1 | Daq the tagh joH'a' { Note: After "
joH'a'," the Hebrew ghajtaH the cha'
letters "Aleph Tav" (the wa'Dich je
last letters vo' the
1:1 Hebrew alphabet) as a grammatical marker. }
created the chal je the tera'.
1:2 | DaH the tera' ghaHta' formless
je empty. HurghtaHghach ghaHta'
Daq the surface vo' the deep. joH'a'
qa' ghaHta' hovering Dung the surface
vo' the
1:2 bIQmey.
1:3 | joH'a' ja'ta', " chaw' pa' taH
wov," je pa' ghaHta' wov.
1:4 | joH'a' leghta' the wov, je leghta'
vetlh 'oH ghaHta' QaQ. joH'a' divided
the wov vo' the HurghtaHghach.
1:5 | joH'a' ja' the wov " jaj," je
the HurghtaHghach ghaH ja' " ram."
pa' ghaHta' evening je pa' ghaHta'
po, wa' jaj.
Ah, yes, everyone on slashdot thinks HE intelligently mines data.
Causes things to oxidise but isnt toxic.
And from Wikipedia:
There is a great deal of evidence to show that ozone at the earth's surface can harm lung function and irritate the respiratory system. Ozone has been found to convert cholesterol in the blood stream to plaque (which causes hardening and narrowing of arteries). This cholesterol product has also been implicated in Alzheimer's disease, suggesting a link between the inflammatory response associated with head injury and Alzheimer's. Air quality guidelines such as those from the World Health Organization are based on detailed studies of what levels can cause measurable health effects.
That's why. If it can oxidise things rapidly and lyse bacteria, I don't really want to breathe much of it.
The lower the temperature of the metal, the closer the free electrons get to the radioactive nuclei. These electrons accelerate positively charged particles towards the nuclei, thereby increasing the probability of fusion reactions.
Guess what? The quote above is from the actual article and would have told you that your post was irrelevant. Closer free electrons = more strong/weak nuclear interaction.
Is this wise? Decreasing the half-life means increasing the radioactivity. Given the option of living near a nuclear waste site and living near the lab where this is performed, I'd choose the former....
You're right. But (as other posters have said) it is [probably] a good tradeoff. In my laboratory, we use ozone to purify water (read: kill bad things therein). It's nasty stuff, but it's so reactive (therefore lethal to buggies) that it disappears really fast. We used to use chlorine, which wasn't nearly so nasty, but which stuck around for much, much longer than the ozone. If you can deal with the reactivity during the worst of the reaction (at the very beginning), then you're pretty much home-free. Constant exposure to low-level chemicals (or radioactivity) which you might not know about is most likely much worse than very quick exposure to high levels of the same stuff which you DO know about.
Gah, I hate that word. brrrrr We make content. It sounds awfully wierd.
The winner of your discontent, eh?
Divers dive in pairs, and you always have a secondary regulator on your equipment, in case your buddy runs out of air or has an equipment failure.
I don't think that that kind of redundancy is gonna work for the jetpack...
Depends on how fat your flying partner is.
VTOL stand for Very Tragic Ordeal with Lacerations, right?
Are you questioning whether we'll be shot down by fighter jets, or whether one of our citizens will need one of the jetpacks for each limb?
Sure glad it's got that yellow bar across the front of it for safety, just in case people can't see the freaking FLAMES and SMOKE, can't smell the FLESH, and can't hear the ROAR and the SCREAMING.
you just have lightly baked lower extremeties with a touch of fried groins.
Great! I'll get one if Natalie Portman rolls all over my hot grits.
The production model, which he hopes to run past the FAA soon for approval [...]
Ah, yes. The good old "If I run fast enough it looks like my feet are off the ground" ploy.
Eh?
... that everyone's new password will be "shave and a haircut"
Broom closet my ass!
I'm sure that's a clever allusion to a movie or something. War Games? But, damn, that combination of words is just disturbing.
Apparently, all the end-users (ack!) have to do is reverse the sewage and run it through a sharpening filter. Then it's as good as the original poop.
This analogy stuff is fun!
I can unequilivically guarentee that we know a lot less than we think we do.
This is the norm for this species, we constantly toute our current knowlege as superior and then every so often prove that we did not know squat.
Well spoken.
A Wal-Mart parking lot on
Black Friday.
Pfft. Now you're just being silly. An M1-Abrams couldn't take that.
For the record, I meant "capacitance" in my post above, not "inductance".
Part of the trouble is that these things are NOT stationary. There's only once in a long time that all of the waves produced by those actuators end up forming the characters they want them to, AND all the rest of the surface is smooth. And that can only be done with some sophisticated feedback as to what waves are present. I haven't read their paper, but I suspect they either sense some inductances at the edge of the tank, or do some fancy laser-scanning of the surface. I can easily see incorporating the continually-changing conditions into the calculations as taking a long time. And cylindrical Bessel functions are not so easily precomputed if you need 50 of them at a particular time. I'd think the easiest way to do that is to set up 50 analog circuits with the appropriate parameters and continuously feed in the water heights along the edge of the tank.
For applications... I can't answer this in full, since part of my research is sort of related. But for detecting things buried in the seafloor, ripples on the seafloor do some amazing things to signals. Having a reliable way to set up such ripples in the laboratory is very useful.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A675308
Darn, these slashdot geeks. Well, I don't care what wikipedia says, I still think of them as crocheted.
That's truthiness, my man. You're a good American. Even if you're British. But not French.
it's not really needed but it does point out the better commanets for those of us who are too lazy to read every one of them.
Definitely in the running for Best-of-quasi-meta-article-about-the-article comment.
Not necessarily arbitrary. The last I knew (and this was quite a while ago, as burgeoning physical theories go), there are four main categories into which systems are classified: Two of them are relatively "boring" from a dynamics point of view, as they correspond to systems which are pretty much locked into static configurations. One of the remaining categories is interesting, but nearly "too interesting", because the behavior there is chaotic, in a specific mathematical and dynamics sense. The remaining category is fabulously interesting, because although systems lying within it evince complex behavior, they can be extremely simple to explain, and there's NOT necessarily "sensitive dependence on the initial conditions". This is the regime in which interconnectedness (maybe not TOO much, as more than, say, two connections per node can lead to chaotic behavior) can lead to feedbacks which make the system extremely robust and responsive to outside signals, but it doesn't fly apart into unpredictability.
Some systems can easily show all four of these different categories just by adjusting ONE parameter (connectedness in networking, say, or an external magnetic field in the case of many Ising-type models). "Simplicity" might fall in one of the two "boring" categories.
... if they name it something that doesn't look like the written version of blowing a raspberry. "OK, Grandma, it's time to take your Pbbbbbbbbt!"