But space is not truly empty. There is about 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter. Not much, but when you are travelling at 1000 times the speed of light, it adds up. Specifically:
1 atom/cubic meter * 300,000,000,000 cubic meters/second = 300,000,000,000 hydrogen atoms hitting every exposed square meter of your hull per second.
Now what (relativistic) velocity they hit it at, I have no idea, not having a degree in hyperbolic topology or warp field propulsion theory:)
Linux didn't really start appearing on Microsoft's radar until after 1999
I call bullshit. Why would you say that, because it wasn't mentioned in there press releases before that? Well of course they don't mention a potential competitor before they're forced too; why give them free PR? I give Microsoft enough credit to know they pay attention to possible threats. In 1999, I was a first year comp-sci student, and even I knew about linux, so you can bet your ass that Microsoft, who are in the OS business, was aware of them too.
It's like what Gandi said: "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win." In '99, microsoft was still in ignore mode.
Is it in the best interest of the company? No. But it's in the best interest of someone at the company. Thats a danger inside such large corporations, but it is how business gets done.
Canada gets away with schemes like this because it's big enough to be an irrestistable market (even at controlled prices), but small enough so that it's lack of participation doesn't impair the capitalist drive to excell
But Canada does have a very healthy liquor industry.
A government-controlled pricing system that works because a larger, foreign, capitalist economy funds all the R&D for the products.
Many people try to take the capitalism vs. socialism as an all or nothing choice; they think that either capitalism makes sense in all cases, or socialism does. In reality, they both have there place.
Capitalism makes sense when an industry or product has not matured, and the competition to find the best product/business model results in important new developments which the consumers can then select for. However, once a product or service has been optimized, competition doesn't really bear any fruit, and it's just fighting for fighting's sake, which wastes alot of time, energy and money because no new developments are coming from it; in this case, it makes sense for all involved parties to get together and establish an orderly system which benefits the most people; basically, a social union.
While minor innovations continue to be made in liquor, just as in any other industry, I think that it's fair to say that the product has matured, and the new innovations are just window-dressing. Therefore, it makes sense to not get involved in the competition, and accept a system which let's the optimized product(s) do the most good.
If you disagree, you must explain why it makes sense for companies to compete, wasting a lot of time and resources, when the product is already optimized, and no new developments will be made.
Hopefully we can use this to treat overzealous politicians' fear of video games.
Which reminds me of when I first got my original NES system: My mom didn't approve of the violence in Duck Hunt. That night I awoke to erie sounds, climbed out of bed, and made my way downstairs to find my mom enthralled by the game. She was really good at it too.
You make it sound like the Government can't tax privatised liquor distribution.
If you simply tax liquor, that only serves to drive the cost up. With the system I outlined, the price stays the same, because the government buys in volume at low cost, sells to the consumer at the regular price, and then puts the difference towards the coffers. Both the consumer/citizen and the government win.
The owners & employees of the privatised liquor store aren't living out of the pocket of the taxpayer
No, because the liquor stores are profitable, they don't need any tax subsidization, but rather they generate money to supplement tax revenue. Hell, you can LOWER taxes, because the liquor stores generate supplemental revenue for the goverment.
There's absolutely no reason for alcohol not to be handled by the private sector.
I'll give you one: In Ontario, Canada, alcohol distribution is similarly run by the Government. Since they buy their alcohol as a single body representing 8 million customers, they can demand great pricing deals from the alcohol producers, and buy at low cost.
The government then sells the alcohol to the consumers at the same price as alcohol in other places, and put the difference into the tax coffers to fund social programs.
The end effect is that you pay the same amount for alcohol, but social programs, like medicine and education, get a funding boost.
Some smart-asses will probably say "but the consumers could just get together and form a single buying body on their own!" To which I reply: yeah, but they won't.
We have a similar thing in Ontario, Canada. It has some interesting characteristics:
Because the province buys all it's alcohol as a single buyer, it can demand, and gets, really awesome pricing deals; I believe about the lowest anywhere.
However, the consumer doesn't see much of this benefit directly, because the price is jacked up so that it isn't really cheaper than any other place. Of course, the difference goes to the tax coffers, paying for social programs like medicine and education. I think it's a good deal.
Also, I've never heard of any disaster like this one happening here. The cause isn't state control, it's having a single point of failure.
He said that their Java division barely broke even on its own, but that it opened so many doors in the business world that they could talk to people who they otherwise couldn't.
So basically, it isn't directly profitable, but indirectly it has provided many profitable opportunities.
I am wondering whether he used distributed or parallel protien folding simulations for some of his work... X-ray crystallography on globular protiens usually yields poor results
He did it through straight x-ray crystallography. See abstracts from the papers here and here. Find the structure here.
have enough power to do the kind of things kids would need to do in school
And what exactly would that be? Seriously, what kinds of applications are these laptops meant for? Unless these kids are doing graphic's rendering or video editing(which, by the way, would only be necessary for certain classes, if any, in which case using a computer lab would be the more cost effective choice), then new laptops with the fastest processors are overkill.
It seems to me that this is just clueless politicians trying to look cool by getting "hip" with the computers, without actually thinking through what the computers are supposed to do.
Careful. By definition, a study like this can NOT show a causal relationship. This study shows a *correlation*, and that is all.
Actually, this is exactly the type of study which is necessary to show causation. The results do show causation, as they performed a controlled double blind study; ie the only difference between the control group and the test group was exposure to the radiation, so their symptoms could only have been caused by the radiation.
The only way to prove causation is by determining *how* the emissions from a cell tower could affect the subjects
I'm afraid it is you who are mistaken. To show that causation occurs it is not necessary to propose a mechanism for the causative effect.
For example: to prove that pointing a loaded gun at a logic textbook and pulling the trigger causes a hole to form in the textbook, all I need to do is run a controlled experiment and show that holes form in the test group textbooks more than in the control group textbooks to a statistically significant degree. I do not need any model as to how the gun achieves the effect.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to look up at the moon and see piles of man-made crap instead of its current beautiful state.
Beautiful state? Let's be serious here: it's a white ball will dents in it. Besides, it's not like you'd see fine details of the solar power stations, all one would notice (if anything) would be a colour difference in the areas where the stations covered the surface.
There is absolutely no proven link between the minute RF field radiated by a handset and health problems.
This study indicates otherwise. If by "link" you mean plausible mechanism, you're right, there is no defined mechanism for how RF radiation could cause these kind's of symptoms; However, a hypothesis for a mechanism on how RF can cause these symptoms is not necessary to show that their is a causal relationship. For that, all one needs is a controlled double blind experiment showing that the test group is effected, which this study does. The mechanism can be investigated later.
Remember these facts: You live in an ocean of electromagnetic energy.
It's not only how much radiation one is exposed to, but also what types. The same dose of gamma rays and infrared will have radically different effects(one will give you cancer, the other will warm your skin).
I have never experienced, nor have I ever encountered anyone who has experienced a health related problems for working in a high RF field.
Anecdotal evidence is not a basis for a scientific conclusion. One's mileage may vary with these effects(if they exist).
I know of no mouse which has been engineered with "re-activated" telomerase, tripling it's life span, nor did a google search find mention of one. I challenge you to provide a link or reference to such a mouse if it exists.
Also, the limit of 50 cell replications you speak of is only for cells in culture, and it is still unknown whether there is such a limit exists for cells still in the body.
Slashdot Mirror
1 atom/cubic meter * 300,000,000,000 cubic meters/second = 300,000,000,000 hydrogen atoms hitting every exposed square meter of your hull per second.
Now what (relativistic) velocity they hit it at, I have no idea, not having a degree in hyperbolic topology or warp field propulsion theory :)
I call bullshit. Why would you say that, because it wasn't mentioned in there press releases before that? Well of course they don't mention a potential competitor before they're forced too; why give them free PR? I give Microsoft enough credit to know they pay attention to possible threats. In 1999, I was a first year comp-sci student, and even I knew about linux, so you can bet your ass that Microsoft, who are in the OS business, was aware of them too.
It's like what Gandi said: "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win." In '99, microsoft was still in ignore mode.
Sounds to me like how business doesn't get done.
There is an old saying: You can't delegate responsibility
I believe Sweden has a similar system.
But Canada does have a very healthy liquor industry.
A government-controlled pricing system that works because a larger, foreign, capitalist economy funds all the R&D for the products.
Many people try to take the capitalism vs. socialism as an all or nothing choice; they think that either capitalism makes sense in all cases, or socialism does. In reality, they both have there place.
Capitalism makes sense when an industry or product has not matured, and the competition to find the best product/business model results in important new developments which the consumers can then select for. However, once a product or service has been optimized, competition doesn't really bear any fruit, and it's just fighting for fighting's sake, which wastes alot of time, energy and money because no new developments are coming from it; in this case, it makes sense for all involved parties to get together and establish an orderly system which benefits the most people; basically, a social union.
While minor innovations continue to be made in liquor, just as in any other industry, I think that it's fair to say that the product has matured, and the new innovations are just window-dressing. Therefore, it makes sense to not get involved in the competition, and accept a system which let's the optimized product(s) do the most good.
If you disagree, you must explain why it makes sense for companies to compete, wasting a lot of time and resources, when the product is already optimized, and no new developments will be made.
Which reminds me of when I first got my original NES system: My mom didn't approve of the violence in Duck Hunt. That night I awoke to erie sounds, climbed out of bed, and made my way downstairs to find my mom enthralled by the game. She was really good at it too.
She never complained about the game again.
True, in this case, but that doesn't mean you can't have a robust state controlled system without single points of failure.
If you simply tax liquor, that only serves to drive the cost up. With the system I outlined, the price stays the same, because the government buys in volume at low cost, sells to the consumer at the regular price, and then puts the difference towards the coffers. Both the consumer/citizen and the government win.
The owners & employees of the privatised liquor store aren't living out of the pocket of the taxpayer
No, because the liquor stores are profitable, they don't need any tax subsidization, but rather they generate money to supplement tax revenue. Hell, you can LOWER taxes, because the liquor stores generate supplemental revenue for the goverment.
Last year it generated $1.7 billion dollars towards government programs, and note that's after costs.
I'll give you one: In Ontario, Canada, alcohol distribution is similarly run by the Government. Since they buy their alcohol as a single body representing 8 million customers, they can demand great pricing deals from the alcohol producers, and buy at low cost.
The government then sells the alcohol to the consumers at the same price as alcohol in other places, and put the difference into the tax coffers to fund social programs.
The end effect is that you pay the same amount for alcohol, but social programs, like medicine and education, get a funding boost.
Some smart-asses will probably say "but the consumers could just get together and form a single buying body on their own!" To which I reply: yeah, but they won't.
That sounds painful!
Because the province buys all it's alcohol as a single buyer, it can demand, and gets, really awesome pricing deals; I believe about the lowest anywhere.
However, the consumer doesn't see much of this benefit directly, because the price is jacked up so that it isn't really cheaper than any other place. Of course, the difference goes to the tax coffers, paying for social programs like medicine and education. I think it's a good deal.
Also, I've never heard of any disaster like this one happening here. The cause isn't state control, it's having a single point of failure.
I saw a sun exec/fellow talk at a student technology conference a couple years back(don't remember his name).
He said that their Java division barely broke even on its own, but that it opened so many doors in the business world that they could talk to people who they otherwise couldn't.
So basically, it isn't directly profitable, but indirectly it has provided many profitable opportunities.
Do you really think that people who download songs instead of buying official albums are really interested in branding?
He did it through straight x-ray crystallography. See abstracts from the papers here and here. Find the structure here.
And what exactly would that be? Seriously, what kinds of applications are these laptops meant for? Unless these kids are doing graphic's rendering or video editing(which, by the way, would only be necessary for certain classes, if any, in which case using a computer lab would be the more cost effective choice), then new laptops with the fastest processors are overkill.
It seems to me that this is just clueless politicians trying to look cool by getting "hip" with the computers, without actually thinking through what the computers are supposed to do.
Actually, this is exactly the type of study which is necessary to show causation. The results do show causation, as they performed a controlled double blind study; ie the only difference between the control group and the test group was exposure to the radiation, so their symptoms could only have been caused by the radiation.
The only way to prove causation is by determining *how* the emissions from a cell tower could affect the subjects
I'm afraid it is you who are mistaken. To show that causation occurs it is not necessary to propose a mechanism for the causative effect.
For example: to prove that pointing a loaded gun at a logic textbook and pulling the trigger causes a hole to form in the textbook, all I need to do is run a controlled experiment and show that holes form in the test group textbooks more than in the control group textbooks to a statistically significant degree. I do not need any model as to how the gun achieves the effect.
Beautiful state? Let's be serious here: it's a white ball will dents in it. Besides, it's not like you'd see fine details of the solar power stations, all one would notice (if anything) would be a colour difference in the areas where the stations covered the surface.
Yes, it's always easy to blame it on "them"
There is absolutely no proven link between the minute RF field radiated by a handset and health problems.
This study indicates otherwise. If by "link" you mean plausible mechanism, you're right, there is no defined mechanism for how RF radiation could cause these kind's of symptoms; However, a hypothesis for a mechanism on how RF can cause these symptoms is not necessary to show that their is a causal relationship. For that, all one needs is a controlled double blind experiment showing that the test group is effected, which this study does. The mechanism can be investigated later.
Remember these facts: You live in an ocean of electromagnetic energy.
It's not only how much radiation one is exposed to, but also what types. The same dose of gamma rays and infrared will have radically different effects(one will give you cancer, the other will warm your skin).
I have never experienced, nor have I ever encountered anyone who has experienced a health related problems for working in a high RF field.
Anecdotal evidence is not a basis for a scientific conclusion. One's mileage may vary with these effects(if they exist).
Hey, don't forget us Computational Biologists!
Actually, telomerase does extend telomere length.
Also, here's a nice animation of telomerase's action(long, animated gif, may be slow on slow connections)
You spend a almost a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market, and it fails in phase three clinical trials, so the FDA doesn't allow you to sell it.
I know of no mouse which has been engineered with "re-activated" telomerase, tripling it's life span, nor did a google search find mention of one. I challenge you to provide a link or reference to such a mouse if it exists.
Also, the limit of 50 cell replications you speak of is only for cells in culture, and it is still unknown whether there is such a limit exists for cells still in the body.
Here is a telomerase faq
If I were Intel, I'd be pretty afraid too of being locked out of there.