Hawking radiation and microscopic black holes are theories that are based mostly on conjecture and calculations that fit a given model. Although I agree with you that the mini black hole thing is probably nothing to worry about, I think the chances of something more interesting happening are just a bit greater than what you imply. But I still won't be losing any sleep over it.
You're now talking about higher frequency of ocean collisions;
Do you realize how big the oceans are? The chances of any ship even seeing one of 1500 ships scattered around the globe is practically zero unless they are placed near a port or on shipping lanes. Ships go from one port to another on very specific routes, they don't wander around the oceans. Keep them out of the shipping lanes and nobody will ever see them.
increased wreckage after damaging storms (and thereby increased maintenance costs all around);
Negligible
the energy expenditure (and CO2 release) required to produce such ships in the first place;
Negligible
what's to stop someone from going out to salvage an unmanned ship in international waters if it is constructed of materials desired?
I think ships are made primarily of steel and not copper.
It would be a whole lot cheaper and easier to just raid the local junkyard.
Our Coast Guard can't even track many drug-runners in the Caribbean, and you want to place 1500 ships on the ocean and cross your fingers that no one touches them?
They could track them very easily if they knew where they were in the first place. I seriously doubt they are just going to let these ships wander around aimlessly through the oceans with no way to find them and identify them except by searching for them. If such a plan were implemented, I'm sure they would know exactly where they are at all times.
There are many other, more direct paths to solving this global problem,
Really? This seems like a very cheap and direct solution if it indeed works.
than the construction of a huge fleet of water-spraying ships that *may* increase sunlight reflectivity by a significant amount while likely instigating numerous practical issues in its implementation.
If the best experts agree that it might work, it's worth testing on a small scale and see what happens in terms of cloud reflectivity and any adverse effects. It could probably even be tested to some extent without building a single ship.
I live in Spain and can't send or receive SMS messages to my friends in the United States. I have used both Orange and Movistar, and neither one of them have agreements with all the major US carriers for SMS. They work with some carriers, but sometimes only one direction (I can send SMS to T-Mobile, but not receive from them). I called Movistar (Spain) and was told they only work with AT&T in the US, and AT&T does indeed appear to be the only one that works in both directions. I have no problems sending or receiving to anyone in Europe.
Now we send email to and from our mobile phones and it turns out to be cheaper than SMS and with fewer limitations. We just don't get the immediate notification.
Some printer inks are very unstable and will discolor significantly in just a few months. I know from personal experience. But some have improved significantly over the past few years. Canon Chromalife inks for example claim to last for 100 years in a photo album, and 30 years in light, when printed on Canon paper. I suspect other manufacturers have similar inks (or similar claims at least).
In the first case I mentioned, a mayor refused a petition to use your tax dollars (and everyone else's, regardless of their personal opinions) to subsidize the celebration of a particular thing. Obviously, there have to be *some* criteria by which a publicly-elected official decides to allocate tax money, right?
Yes, there does have to be some criteria, and I don't know how that city decides these type of things, but it's probably not "whatever the mayor thinks is right based on her own religious beliefs", and based on her public record, that was likely the case in this instance.
Point is, it's not as clear-cut as you've tried to make it out to be.
I didn't say it was clear cut. I'm saying that an individual's own personal beliefs should not be the criteria.
If by "participate in society" you mean, have one of the 365 days of the year "named" after a particular lifestyle, culture, ideology, or choice, I have to ask: Why is your sense of self and identity so fragile that you cannot accept yourself as legitimate until some local government has declared a celebration in honor of you?
I think you have totally missed the point. Participating in society is much more than that and the issue is not whether a group of people has a day named for them. It's only a symptom of the problem.
Really? People have lived entire lives without their particular ethnic/gender/sexual group being celebrated and "acknowledged" by *anyone*. They've managed to get by.
Yes, and people have been, and still are, discriminated against, beaten, mutilated, tortured, etc. their entire lives and managed to get by. I guess it's OK then as long as they "manage to get by"?
First of all, what makes you so sure I'm just not a rational, fiscally conservative gay man?
Did I say you weren't? In fact I was assuming you probably are gay. The people that have the most homophobia and hated for homosexuals are homosexual themselves. People that are comfortable with their own sexuality tend to not care so much about the sexuality of others.
Second, how, exactly, would "homosexuals take over the world?" especially when so many of them (or perhaps *us*?) spend so much of their (or maybe *our*) time and energy trying to enforce publicly-funded, public celebrations of being gay? And (most importantly) how would a "homosexual-controlled world" be any different from the one we live in now? Would the "Fashion Police" become *actual* Police?
I said it was a fear. You tell me - what is it that you are afraid of? Is it really the fashion police? People have irrational fears of all sorts of things. That doesn't mean they are realistic or even possible. The fact that every one of your examples was about homosexuals when the topic had nothing to do with homosexuality certainly causes one to wonder, and using words like "dragged" and "Yikes" certainly doesn't help your case.
The world you propose [...] would require that people would no longer be free to choose who to provide their services to or not.
Exactly!!! They should not be free to choose who to provide services to or not if they have a business that is generally open to the public. Doing so allows the majority to suppress the minority by denying them services. Maybe you should read a little about the history of black people in the United States. Do you honestly think there would not be a return to "White people only" signs in businesses and public facilities if every business could freely decide who they would provide services to or not?
Say you owned, I don't know, a hair salon (big stretch, I know), and a group of openly proud Klansmen came in to get their haircuts for the big rally. Obeying your own rules, you would no longer be free to choose to deny them your services, even though you wouldn't want to give them haircuts.
So, if you owned a printing shop and I asked you to print promotional material that bashes gays and lesbians, would you do it? Or would you deny me access to your shop due to your own personal opinion? I would deny you access because you're promoting something that is illegal. I wouldn't promote child molesting, murder, nor a bunch of other things as well. But if you were a skinhead, or from the KKK, or a Christian, or whatever, I would not deny you access, nor should I be allowed to deny you access to print something that is legal, such as a promotion for a march or whatever, if my services were generally available to the public.
How in the hole hell can you justify this statement: "To prevent narrow minded individuals from deciding what is "right" for the rest of society. " Narrow minded is accepting a small set of something as right and the rest as wrong, hence the word "narrow". Open minded is accepting the fact that people are different and have different opinions, whether you like it or not, hence the word "Open". Preventing groups of people from having something that others have access based on your own personal views is being narrow minded. Treating everyone equally, whether you like it or not, is open minded. See the difference?
Seems to me that what the court is doing is exactly that. YOU have decided that they are narrow minded and you are "open" minded, and since they disagree with you they are wrong and must be FORCED TO CHANGE. Do you not see the logical inconsistency? They are discriminating against a group of individuals based on their own personal beliefs. This is what the court has decided, and what I agree with. This is what makes them narrow minded. That is all there is to it. The only thing they have decided is "right" is to treat everyone equally. There is no logical inconsistency. If the court was telling them to discriminate against one group of people and not another, then you would have a valid point. Forcing them to treat everyone equally is not deciding what is "right" for society, but exactly the opposite.
In each of your "Yikes!" examples, you have an individual that has used their own personal opinion to deny a group of people equal access to something that is enjoyed by everyone else. This is precisely why we have Human Rights Commissions in the first place. To prevent narrow minded individuals from deciding what is "right" for the rest of society.
It's clear from you language that you have a deep fear of homosexuals taking over the world, so I'm not going to bother arguing each of you examples, but #3 made me laugh. The city of Kelowna was not dragged in front of the Human Rights Commission because they celebrated "Gay and Lesbian Day". The truth of the matter is that the celebration was called "Lesbian and Gay Pride Day" and the mayor decided, due to his own personal opinion, that the word "pride" should not be included because he didn't like the idea of gay men and lesbians being proud of it.
What would you think if the mayor changed "Catholic Celebration Day" to "Priests raping young children day" because he happened to not like catholics? Do we elect officials to be our morality compass and only serve those individuals that agree with them? I certainly hope not.
Your other points, whether true or not, are basically the same issue. You have an individual deciding which groups can and cannot participate in society, and discrimination of this sort should rightly be controlled. Particularly when the individual is in a government position where they should be serving everyone in their jurisdiction, and not just the people they like.
If some of this bacteria finds its way into the ocean or any other body of water, would we have a perpetually expanding pool of oil that can't be stopped?
I didn't see anything in the article about whether or not this bacteria is capable of reproducing on its own. Hopefully it can be controlled in some way.
Boeing does testing of their aircraft (or at least they did when I worked there) near Moses Lake because there is not much around there. They do things like turn all the engines off on a 747 and see if they can restart them while nose diving towards the ground, and flying them upside down and other fun stuff like that.
What really bothers me is that not this white house makes nixon and reagan look like boy scouts, but that the dems PROMISED to go after them, and really has done nothing.
Actually, some of them are trying, but the Bush regime has protected itself and is managing to block all attempts at going after them. Congressman Robert Wexler is working hard to bring them down. Check out www.WexlerForCongress.com.
I'm pretty sure AT&T had this capability several years ago. I can remember testing it out on my mobile phone, probably around 5 years ago. The only thing it was really useful for was to find a certain type of place "nearby", which means within a short drive, but it never told you what your location actually is, just what is near you. When I tested it, it seemed more accurate then I expected (or just lucky). It was recommending locations that were within a block or two of where I was, in opposite directions.
But at least part of the argument is that with their monopolistic practices, Microsoft is stifling competition, and hence innovation, within the United States. Protections for large corporations like Microsoft have been on the increase in the U.S. in recent years, because there is big money involved. But if you let the big companies rest on their power, and not the quality of their product, then the new innovative products will be produced elsewhere, where they have a chance to survive, and at some point the large corporation will disappear, and all the good stuff will be somewhere else.
`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.
`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.
`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
Don't you think that perhaps they might be wanting to put controls on the Internet, or are you that blind that you cannot see it in plain text? Why else was it mentioned?
`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.
`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.
`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
The issue is not whether or not #3 is true or not, but why is it pointed out in the bill if there is not an intent to do something about it? The question is, what are they going to do about it?
I think a more plausible explanation, if there are actually musical notes in the painting (which I doubt), is that Da Vinci had an idea that there would be a natural beauty in the music that could be expressed in the painting. He may have been trying to bring together the natural attraction we have in each art form, to create something extraordinary. Perhaps we subliminally see the music in the painting, and it adds some sort of attraction that we cannot describe.
It was actually 8.8 billion that disappeared, and the administration had little concern for where it went. Considering this war was all about money from the beginning, I think they know exactly where it went.
France is not last. It's not expected here in Spain until May. Rumor has it that the exclusive provider (Telefonica Movistar) is holding out for a 3G version, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if that doesn't happen.
I swear companies here go out of there way to try to NOT make money, so they are probably waiting for the novelty to wear off so they don't sell so many.
I have considered buying a video game console several times, because I enjoy a good game now and then, but I am not a regular video game player by any means. But when I look at the games that are available this is all I see:
80-90% of the games are based on some movie or TV show. I immediately ignore those because they obviously think that it takes the name to sell the game. If the game is good, it doesn't need to be named "Harry Potter" or something similar.
Of the remaining games, there is one auto racing game, which I think I could enjoy, and the rest are shoot-em-up, beat-em-up games, which I hate. (not because of the violence, but because in order to make the game somewhat interesting, they are overly complicated, and too complicated for the casual game player)
Are there ANY other games, other than those mentioned above, that make use of advanced graphics, or should I just stick with the old classics such as Pac-Man? If I bought a video game console, it looks like I would be paying $600 for a single auto racing game, and that's it. Why has the advancement of the graphics technology brought all the games down to one type of game with different graphics stuck on it?
If I could find 4 or 5 good games, with advanced graphics, that do not involve beating up or killing everything in sight, I would go out and buy a game console right now. Do they exist?
Otherwise I may as well just stick with the simple, low tech, free games I have on Linux.
This is what they say in public: "...allows us to experiment on the two campuses with distributed teams that can collaborate and share insights derived from a better understanding of complex results."
The one to two grand paid by the state PFD does not provide much help to a middle income family trying to buy a home when a vacant 1.5 acre lot in Anchorage sells for about $750,000 (just went on the market a few days ago).
Do you realize how large 1.5 acres is? Especially considering it's within a city. A standard inner city house lot is 5000 square feet in many cities. 1.5 acres is 65340 square feet, or the equivalent of 13 house lots! That's a house, with a yard. So $750,000 divided by 13 is a mere $57,392. Sounds like a bargain to me for a home in the city.
Put an apartment complex on that piece of land and you can easily have over 100 homes.
The summary says underground tunnel, but it's actually an undersea tunnel and is likely above ground. These types of things typically are. The sections are dropped into the sea and connected together on the sea floor. They are not dug underground.
I love my Nokia N800, and I really think there is going to be a huge market for these types of devices. Especially if WiMAX ever takes off. I think typical cell phones are worthless for general internet usage, but the Nokia N800 is very usable for normal web pages. I can watch videos from YouTube on it (although not quite flawlessly, it needs just a bit more speed), and use all my favorite websites quite well. I can ssh into my home machine and with VNC I get my entire desktop from my Linux box right on the Nokia screen and it looks fantastic (and is usable). Skype is supposed to be released for it in a couple of months, which will really be great since it will then become a mobile video phone. Once WiMAX is put into use, these types of devices are going to really take off since it will mean internet access everywhere. No need to hunt down a hotspot.
The article fails to mention that the cooling was in one dimension only, in the direction of the laser, so the mirror would not even feel cryogenically cold if you touched it. The atoms are frozen in one dimension but are free to move in the other dimensions.
I don't have a reference at the moment nor the time to dig it up, but I am fairly sure this is the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Hawking radiation and microscopic black holes are theories that are based mostly on conjecture and calculations that fit a given model. Although I agree with you that the mini black hole thing is probably nothing to worry about, I think the chances of something more interesting happening are just a bit greater than what you imply. But I still won't be losing any sleep over it.
You're now talking about higher frequency of ocean collisions;
Do you realize how big the oceans are? The chances of any ship even seeing one of 1500 ships scattered around the globe is practically zero unless they are placed near a port or on shipping lanes. Ships go from one port to another on very specific routes, they don't wander around the oceans. Keep them out of the shipping lanes and nobody will ever see them.
increased wreckage after damaging storms (and thereby increased maintenance costs all around);
Negligible
the energy expenditure (and CO2 release) required to produce such ships in the first place;
Negligible
what's to stop someone from going out to salvage an unmanned ship in international waters if it is constructed of materials desired?
I think ships are made primarily of steel and not copper. It would be a whole lot cheaper and easier to just raid the local junkyard.
Our Coast Guard can't even track many drug-runners in the Caribbean, and you want to place 1500 ships on the ocean and cross your fingers that no one touches them?
They could track them very easily if they knew where they were in the first place. I seriously doubt they are just going to let these ships wander around aimlessly through the oceans with no way to find them and identify them except by searching for them. If such a plan were implemented, I'm sure they would know exactly where they are at all times.
There are many other, more direct paths to solving this global problem,
Really? This seems like a very cheap and direct solution if it indeed works.
than the construction of a huge fleet of water-spraying ships that *may* increase sunlight reflectivity by a significant amount while likely instigating numerous practical issues in its implementation.
If the best experts agree that it might work, it's worth testing on a small scale and see what happens in terms of cloud reflectivity and any adverse effects. It could probably even be tested to some extent without building a single ship.
I live in Spain and can't send or receive SMS messages to my friends in the United States. I have used both Orange and Movistar, and neither one of them have agreements with all the major US carriers for SMS. They work with some carriers, but sometimes only one direction (I can send SMS to T-Mobile, but not receive from them). I called Movistar (Spain) and was told they only work with AT&T in the US, and AT&T does indeed appear to be the only one that works in both directions. I have no problems sending or receiving to anyone in Europe.
Now we send email to and from our mobile phones and it turns out to be cheaper than SMS and with fewer limitations. We just don't get the immediate notification.
Some printer inks are very unstable and will discolor significantly in just a few months. I know from personal experience. But some have improved significantly over the past few years. Canon Chromalife inks for example claim to last for 100 years in a photo album, and 30 years in light, when printed on Canon paper. I suspect other manufacturers have similar inks (or similar claims at least).
In the first case I mentioned, a mayor refused a petition to use your tax dollars (and everyone else's, regardless of their personal opinions) to subsidize the celebration of a particular thing. Obviously, there have to be *some* criteria by which a publicly-elected official decides to allocate tax money, right?
Yes, there does have to be some criteria, and I don't know how that city decides these type of things, but it's probably not "whatever the mayor thinks is right based on her own religious beliefs", and based on her public record, that was likely the case in this instance.
Point is, it's not as clear-cut as you've tried to make it out to be.
I didn't say it was clear cut. I'm saying that an individual's own personal beliefs should not be the criteria.
If by "participate in society" you mean, have one of the 365 days of the year "named" after a particular lifestyle, culture, ideology, or choice, I have to ask: Why is your sense of self and identity so fragile that you cannot accept yourself as legitimate until some local government has declared a celebration in honor of you?
I think you have totally missed the point. Participating in society is much more than that and the issue is not whether a group of people has a day named for them. It's only a symptom of the problem.
Really? People have lived entire lives without their particular ethnic/gender/sexual group being celebrated and "acknowledged" by *anyone*. They've managed to get by.
Yes, and people have been, and still are, discriminated against, beaten, mutilated, tortured, etc. their entire lives and managed to get by. I guess it's OK then as long as they "manage to get by"?
First of all, what makes you so sure I'm just not a rational, fiscally conservative gay man?
Did I say you weren't? In fact I was assuming you probably are gay. The people that have the most homophobia and hated for homosexuals are homosexual themselves. People that are comfortable with their own sexuality tend to not care so much about the sexuality of others.
Second, how, exactly, would "homosexuals take over the world?" especially when so many of them (or perhaps *us*?) spend so much of their (or maybe *our*) time and energy trying to enforce publicly-funded, public celebrations of being gay? And (most importantly) how would a "homosexual-controlled world" be any different from the one we live in now? Would the "Fashion Police" become *actual* Police?
I said it was a fear. You tell me - what is it that you are afraid of? Is it really the fashion police? People have irrational fears of all sorts of things. That doesn't mean they are realistic or even possible. The fact that every one of your examples was about homosexuals when the topic had nothing to do with homosexuality certainly causes one to wonder, and using words like "dragged" and "Yikes" certainly doesn't help your case.
The world you propose [...] would require that people would no longer be free to choose who to provide their services to or not.
Exactly!!! They should not be free to choose who to provide services to or not if they have a business that is generally open to the public. Doing so allows the majority to suppress the minority by denying them services. Maybe you should read a little about the history of black people in the United States. Do you honestly think there would not be a return to "White people only" signs in businesses and public facilities if every business could freely decide who they would provide services to or not?
Say you owned, I don't know, a hair salon (big stretch, I know), and a group of openly proud Klansmen came in to get their haircuts for the big rally. Obeying your own rules, you would no longer be free to choose to deny them your services, even though you wouldn't want to give them haircuts.
I should not be free to deny them my services.
Seems to me that what the court is doing is exactly that. YOU have decided that they are narrow minded and you are "open" minded, and since they disagree with you they are wrong and must be FORCED TO CHANGE. Do you not see the logical inconsistency? They are discriminating against a group of individuals based on their own personal beliefs. This is what the court has decided, and what I agree with. This is what makes them narrow minded. That is all there is to it. The only thing they have decided is "right" is to treat everyone equally. There is no logical inconsistency. If the court was telling them to discriminate against one group of people and not another, then you would have a valid point. Forcing them to treat everyone equally is not deciding what is "right" for society, but exactly the opposite.
In each of your "Yikes!" examples, you have an individual that has used their own personal opinion to deny a group of people equal access to something that is enjoyed by everyone else. This is precisely why we have Human Rights Commissions in the first place. To prevent narrow minded individuals from deciding what is "right" for the rest of society.
It's clear from you language that you have a deep fear of homosexuals taking over the world, so I'm not going to bother arguing each of you examples, but #3 made me laugh. The city of Kelowna was not dragged in front of the Human Rights Commission because they celebrated "Gay and Lesbian Day". The truth of the matter is that the celebration was called "Lesbian and Gay Pride Day" and the mayor decided, due to his own personal opinion, that the word "pride" should not be included because he didn't like the idea of gay men and lesbians being proud of it.
What would you think if the mayor changed "Catholic Celebration Day" to "Priests raping young children day" because he happened to not like catholics? Do we elect officials to be our morality compass and only serve those individuals that agree with them? I certainly hope not.
Your other points, whether true or not, are basically the same issue. You have an individual deciding which groups can and cannot participate in society, and discrimination of this sort should rightly be controlled. Particularly when the individual is in a government position where they should be serving everyone in their jurisdiction, and not just the people they like.
If some of this bacteria finds its way into the ocean or any other body of water, would we have a perpetually expanding pool of oil that can't be stopped?
I didn't see anything in the article about whether or not this bacteria is capable of reproducing on its own. Hopefully it can be controlled in some way.
Boeing does testing of their aircraft (or at least they did when I worked there) near Moses Lake because there is not much around there. They do things like turn all the engines off on a 747 and see if they can restart them while nose diving towards the ground, and flying them upside down and other fun stuff like that.
What really bothers me is that not this white house makes nixon and reagan look like boy scouts, but that the dems PROMISED to go after them, and really has done nothing.
Actually, some of them are trying, but the Bush regime has protected itself and is managing to block all attempts at going after them. Congressman Robert Wexler is working hard to bring them down. Check out www.WexlerForCongress.com.
I'm pretty sure AT&T had this capability several years ago. I can remember testing it out on my mobile phone, probably around 5 years ago. The only thing it was really useful for was to find a certain type of place "nearby", which means within a short drive, but it never told you what your location actually is, just what is near you. When I tested it, it seemed more accurate then I expected (or just lucky). It was recommending locations that were within a block or two of where I was, in opposite directions.
But at least part of the argument is that with their monopolistic practices, Microsoft is stifling competition, and hence innovation, within the United States. Protections for large corporations like Microsoft have been on the increase in the U.S. in recent years, because there is big money involved. But if you let the big companies rest on their power, and not the quality of their product, then the new innovative products will be produced elsewhere, where they have a chance to survive, and at some point the large corporation will disappear, and all the good stuff will be somewhere else.
Don't you think that perhaps they might be wanting to put controls on the Internet, or are you that blind that you cannot see it in plain text? Why else was it mentioned?
The issue is not whether or not #3 is true or not, but why is it pointed out in the bill if there is not an intent to do something about it? The question is, what are they going to do about it?
I think a more plausible explanation, if there are actually musical notes in the painting (which I doubt), is that Da Vinci had an idea that there would be a natural beauty in the music that could be expressed in the painting. He may have been trying to bring together the natural attraction we have in each art form, to create something extraordinary. Perhaps we subliminally see the music in the painting, and it adds some sort of attraction that we cannot describe.
It was actually 8.8 billion that disappeared, and the administration had little concern for where it went. Considering this war was all about money from the beginning, I think they know exactly where it went.
France is not last. It's not expected here in Spain until May. Rumor has it that the exclusive provider (Telefonica Movistar) is holding out for a 3G version, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if that doesn't happen. I swear companies here go out of there way to try to NOT make money, so they are probably waiting for the novelty to wear off so they don't sell so many.
- 80-90% of the games are based on some movie or TV show. I immediately ignore those because they obviously think that it takes the name to sell the game. If the game is good, it doesn't need to be named "Harry Potter" or something similar.
- Of the remaining games, there is one auto racing game, which I think I could enjoy, and the rest are shoot-em-up, beat-em-up games, which I hate. (not because of the violence, but because in order to make the game somewhat interesting, they are overly complicated, and too complicated for the casual game player)
Are there ANY other games, other than those mentioned above, that make use of advanced graphics, or should I just stick with the old classics such as Pac-Man? If I bought a video game console, it looks like I would be paying $600 for a single auto racing game, and that's it. Why has the advancement of the graphics technology brought all the games down to one type of game with different graphics stuck on it?If I could find 4 or 5 good games, with advanced graphics, that do not involve beating up or killing everything in sight, I would go out and buy a game console right now. Do they exist?
Otherwise I may as well just stick with the simple, low tech, free games I have on Linux.
This is what they say in public:
"...allows us to experiment on the two campuses with distributed teams that can collaborate and share insights derived from a better understanding of complex results."
But it private:
"this is fucking awesome!"
The one to two grand paid by the state PFD does not provide much help to a middle income family trying to buy a home when a vacant 1.5 acre lot in Anchorage sells for about $750,000 (just went on the market a few days ago).
Do you realize how large 1.5 acres is? Especially considering it's within a city. A standard inner city house lot is 5000 square feet in many cities. 1.5 acres is 65340 square feet, or the equivalent of 13 house lots! That's a house, with a yard. So $750,000 divided by 13 is a mere $57,392. Sounds like a bargain to me for a home in the city.
Put an apartment complex on that piece of land and you can easily have over 100 homes.
If it can work on Michael Jackson, I will be really impressed.
The summary says underground tunnel, but it's actually an undersea tunnel and is likely above ground. These types of things typically are. The sections are dropped into the sea and connected together on the sea floor. They are not dug underground.
I love my Nokia N800, and I really think there is going to be a huge market for these types of devices. Especially if WiMAX ever takes off. I think typical cell phones are worthless for general internet usage, but the Nokia N800 is very usable for normal web pages. I can watch videos from YouTube on it (although not quite flawlessly, it needs just a bit more speed), and use all my favorite websites quite well. I can ssh into my home machine and with VNC I get my entire desktop from my Linux box right on the Nokia screen and it looks fantastic (and is usable). Skype is supposed to be released for it in a couple of months, which will really be great since it will then become a mobile video phone. Once WiMAX is put into use, these types of devices are going to really take off since it will mean internet access everywhere. No need to hunt down a hotspot.
The article fails to mention that the cooling was in one dimension only, in the direction of the laser, so the mirror would not even feel cryogenically cold if you touched it. The atoms are frozen in one dimension but are free to move in the other dimensions.
I don't have a reference at the moment nor the time to dig it up, but I am fairly sure this is the case.