In fact, Alyssa Rowan (quoted in TFA and a known persona in the crypto community) detailed the canary in the previous./ article, posting as an AC: http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Listing both is redundant, as DMT is the active ingredient in ayahuasca (the MAOI component in this plant extract is there to prevent the DMT from being destroyed in the gut by monoamine oxidaze, and its psychoactive effect is miniscule in comparison to the DMT -- if MAOIs had a strong psychoactive effect they probably wouldn't be used as antidepressants). Listing DMT would have been sufficient; listing both is kind of like listing mescaline and peyote both, which doesn't make sense -- one comes from the other.
Of course, you're quoting to opening narration from the American Psycho movie. But if you think about the described routine, it doesn't really make sense. He first applies an ice pack (which does, indeed, reduce puffiness), and then a pore cleanser. I thought everyone knew that cold constricts pores. That's why at some spas when you get a facial they start with warm steam. This opens up your pores, and the cleaning works better. Another problem with the routine described in the movie is daily exfoliation of the face. You shouldn't be doing it more than a couple of times a week. The point about alcohol-free after-shave, though, is spot on. I use witch-hazel based tonic before a moisturizing aftershave and it really takes away the irritation of shaving.
To make a tabletop CT scanner. I was inspired by commercial ones for lab/industry use that rely on cone-beam tomography, and a turntable to rotate the sample instead of spinning the X-ray source around it. It's actually pretty simple to do with a stepper motor, scintillation screen (you can just rip out the intensifier from an X-ray cassette), a good camera, and, of course, an X-ray source with a sufficiently small focus.
While Bengtsson is wrong on this, he's no crackpot. This paper was rejected, but most of his previous ones were published and he is (was?) a respected scientist in the field. His problem seems to be that he has allowed himself to mix his politics with the science. That's wrong, but so is your ad hominem; calling him a crackpot cheapens the word, and your argument.
It turns out that rectifying 50 kV is easier for a hobbyist than you may think. I was also once in a situation where I needed to do rectify high voltage. I bought a 120 kV medical X-ray machine on eBay years ago, less a power supply. The seller sent me (free!) a quad of antique KR-9 kenotrons, very large oil-cooled rectifier tubes. I was planning to use them for a bridge rectifier with the 1:800 transformer I found (though X-ray tubes can operate in self-rectifying mode, it's only active during part of the AC cycle). Unfortunately, after an argument my ex broke all but one of the kenotrons (which I'm especially bitter about now, after seeing a single one go on ebay for ~$150).
But onto the solution. You can get 12-15 kV solid state rectifiers online in bulk from Chinese manufacturers. I bought 100 of them for around $40, though I don't remember if it was alibaba or another of these sites. The ones I got are good for an amp or two. Make a series and/or parallel network as needed to get to the voltage and current rating you need, making sure to add an extra 30% for peak inverse voltage because the rectifiers won't be perfectly matched, even if they're from the same batch by the manufacturer (if you're really worrying about mismatches, add a resistor divider network in parallel, connected at each node, to even out the voltage across each diode--set the resistance for about 10% idle current--and your use case must be able to take that amount of reverse leakage into account). Now the most important part--avoiding arcing. Take a PVC pipe that will fit your network, and two end caps to which you add screws as end terminals, and epoxy them in place. Connect your rectifier chain to the end-caps, stuffing it into the pipe, then fill the pipe with pure paraffin wax before sealing the second end. You could use transformer or even regular mineral oil (I'd not recommend baby oil, though), but it's likely to leak and that shit's hard to clean up--I use it for the transformer and speak from experience.
I'm surprised one that cheap has become available this quickly. Hopefully we'll get a decent price on an auto-winding one as well in the coming months.
Warmth in audio almost always refers to the sound characteristics of tube amps: soft clipping when overdriven, and harmonic distortion concentrated mostly in low order even harmonics.
Combine this with trends like the skyrocketing investment into robotics by companies like Google, and one starts wondering if poor people are about to become obsolete.
Many of "the druggies and drunks" are hardly more responsible for their lot than the mentally ill, and the two categories of problems are highly related. Getting out of addiction is not simply a matter of willpower, and there are many factors that predispose people to end up stuck in those habits that are largely outside of their control. You're being too judgmental.
Claiming self-organized criticality explains the mind, as TFA does, is akin to claiming that a model of how clock synchronization works in a microprocessor explains the algorithms it implements. This is literally the dumbest thing I've seen posted on Slashdot in a long while. If you really want to know how the mind works, read the work of leading neuroscientists like Damasio (Self Comes to Mind is a good start, then just follow up on the extensive bilbiography therein).
What's sad is not that post by itself, but the moderation it got, which really showcases the sorry state of technical education prevalent so much that even the average moderator at a supposedly technically-savvy place like Slashdot would confuse fantasy with an good idea within the realm of possibility.
Please mod parent down: charging the car in 1-2 minutes would require recharging at one to two megawatts, which, even at high voltage, would require two orders of magnitude more current than reasonable wiring can handle (reasonable: something a human could lift).
Exactly: they can be encoded finitely by their corresponding generative algorithms. I think mathematicians' tendency to extend their thinking to infinities are really flights of fancy that have little to do with the real universe; those are more about psychology than physics.
My point was that pi and e are not properties of the physical universe. In a sense, it's the algorithms that compute them to a given precision that are properties (because they can be encoded finitely, and thus physically), and the precision limits depends on the extent and energy density of the finite region of the universe under consideration.
I was specifically addressing this: If math was really modeling the universe well, we would have whole numbers for constants: e, c, k, pi.
Your comment implies we don't have whole numbers for constants for a good reason, beyond just a choice of a number system. Indeed, you acknowledged this in your response to brantondaveperson below, saying you can't have both pi and e as whole numbers in a single numeric system. What this really implies is that pi and e are each nice and compact characteristics of the physical universe that, if the math was actually representative of said physical universe, ought to be representable in that math as something akin to whole numbers. Of course, they are neither. They are, however, representable in the natural number math quite well: they map directly to the finite algorithms that can compute them to a given precision, whereby the precision limit of the computation (dependent on time and storage) has a dual in the physical universe--the constraints imposed by a finite spacial extent and finite energy density mentioned in my post above. Pi and e to arbitrary precision are not properties of any finite portion of the physical universe; only the finitely-encodable algorithms that compute them are.
The question is whether physics exhibits some signature of an incomplete simulation by a concrete machine with characteristics familiar to us.
Yes, and it depends on exactly what is meant by "characteristics familiar to us". If the simulation hypothesis is correct, the host 'machine' in question is more likely to share characteristics with our universe's physics that have to do with the nature of computability in a qualitative sense, rather than merely quantitative (and specifically, scalability and efficiency). I don't find it implausible that the similarity doesn't much extend to the latter (but does to the former); if that is the case, it still may be the case that the simulation is imperfect as proposed in the paper.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, Alyssa Rowan (quoted in TFA and a known persona in the crypto community) detailed the canary in the previous ./ article, posting as an AC: http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Narrow view angle significantly compromises immersion. I was hoping for better from Sony.
> ayahuasca, DMT
Listing both is redundant, as DMT is the active ingredient in ayahuasca (the MAOI component in this plant extract is there to prevent the DMT from being destroyed in the gut by monoamine oxidaze, and its psychoactive effect is miniscule in comparison to the DMT -- if MAOIs had a strong psychoactive effect they probably wouldn't be used as antidepressants). Listing DMT would have been sufficient; listing both is kind of like listing mescaline and peyote both, which doesn't make sense -- one comes from the other.
Of course, you're quoting to opening narration from the American Psycho movie. But if you think about the described routine, it doesn't really make sense. He first applies an ice pack (which does, indeed, reduce puffiness), and then a pore cleanser. I thought everyone knew that cold constricts pores. That's why at some spas when you get a facial they start with warm steam. This opens up your pores, and the cleaning works better. Another problem with the routine described in the movie is daily exfoliation of the face. You shouldn't be doing it more than a couple of times a week. The point about alcohol-free after-shave, though, is spot on. I use witch-hazel based tonic before a moisturizing aftershave and it really takes away the irritation of shaving.
I wonder if this might change the Obama administration's calculus and their continued delays on the proposed pipeline.
To make a tabletop CT scanner. I was inspired by commercial ones for lab/industry use that rely on cone-beam tomography, and a turntable to rotate the sample instead of spinning the X-ray source around it. It's actually pretty simple to do with a stepper motor, scintillation screen (you can just rip out the intensifier from an X-ray cassette), a good camera, and, of course, an X-ray source with a sufficiently small focus.
While Bengtsson is wrong on this, he's no crackpot. This paper was rejected, but most of his previous ones were published and he is (was?) a respected scientist in the field. His problem seems to be that he has allowed himself to mix his politics with the science. That's wrong, but so is your ad hominem; calling him a crackpot cheapens the word, and your argument.
It turns out that rectifying 50 kV is easier for a hobbyist than you may think. I was also once in a situation where I needed to do rectify high voltage. I bought a 120 kV medical X-ray machine on eBay years ago, less a power supply. The seller sent me (free!) a quad of antique KR-9 kenotrons, very large oil-cooled rectifier tubes. I was planning to use them for a bridge rectifier with the 1:800 transformer I found (though X-ray tubes can operate in self-rectifying mode, it's only active during part of the AC cycle). Unfortunately, after an argument my ex broke all but one of the kenotrons (which I'm especially bitter about now, after seeing a single one go on ebay for ~$150). But onto the solution. You can get 12-15 kV solid state rectifiers online in bulk from Chinese manufacturers. I bought 100 of them for around $40, though I don't remember if it was alibaba or another of these sites. The ones I got are good for an amp or two. Make a series and/or parallel network as needed to get to the voltage and current rating you need, making sure to add an extra 30% for peak inverse voltage because the rectifiers won't be perfectly matched, even if they're from the same batch by the manufacturer (if you're really worrying about mismatches, add a resistor divider network in parallel, connected at each node, to even out the voltage across each diode--set the resistance for about 10% idle current--and your use case must be able to take that amount of reverse leakage into account). Now the most important part--avoiding arcing. Take a PVC pipe that will fit your network, and two end caps to which you add screws as end terminals, and epoxy them in place. Connect your rectifier chain to the end-caps, stuffing it into the pipe, then fill the pipe with pure paraffin wax before sealing the second end. You could use transformer or even regular mineral oil (I'd not recommend baby oil, though), but it's likely to leak and that shit's hard to clean up--I use it for the transformer and speak from experience.
I'm surprised one that cheap has become available this quickly. Hopefully we'll get a decent price on an auto-winding one as well in the coming months.
Warmth in audio almost always refers to the sound characteristics of tube amps: soft clipping when overdriven, and harmonic distortion concentrated mostly in low order even harmonics.
Indeed. Even Chinese mechanical watches with real tourbillons will set you back a grand or two.
Combine this with trends like the skyrocketing investment into robotics by companies like Google, and one starts wondering if poor people are about to become obsolete.
Many of "the druggies and drunks" are hardly more responsible for their lot than the mentally ill, and the two categories of problems are highly related. Getting out of addiction is not simply a matter of willpower, and there are many factors that predispose people to end up stuck in those habits that are largely outside of their control. You're being too judgmental.
Superconductors are not just temperature-limited, but also current-limited.
This is really an artificial problem. There's no point in tackling it, when fuel cells circumvent it neatly.
Claiming self-organized criticality explains the mind, as TFA does, is akin to claiming that a model of how clock synchronization works in a microprocessor explains the algorithms it implements. This is literally the dumbest thing I've seen posted on Slashdot in a long while. If you really want to know how the mind works, read the work of leading neuroscientists like Damasio (Self Comes to Mind is a good start, then just follow up on the extensive bilbiography therein).
I commend your good intentions, but in the end, please realize that it's futile to argue with the sufferers of Assburgers syndrome.
You think that's bad? Look at the genius who wants to charge car batteries at that rate: http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
What's sad is not that post by itself, but the moderation it got, which really showcases the sorry state of technical education prevalent so much that even the average moderator at a supposedly technically-savvy place like Slashdot would confuse fantasy with an good idea within the realm of possibility.
My favorite post of the week. Please mod parent up.
00 gauge isn't anywhere close to cutting it, even if you're running this at a few kV. GP poster simply didn't think this through when rushing to post.
Please mod parent down: charging the car in 1-2 minutes would require recharging at one to two megawatts, which, even at high voltage, would require two orders of magnitude more current than reasonable wiring can handle (reasonable: something a human could lift).
Your cow/goat swapping comment implies you've bought into the common myth that money developed as a replacement for barter. http://thememorybank.co.uk/pap... http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/econo...
Exactly: they can be encoded finitely by their corresponding generative algorithms. I think mathematicians' tendency to extend their thinking to infinities are really flights of fancy that have little to do with the real universe; those are more about psychology than physics.
My point was that pi and e are not properties of the physical universe. In a sense, it's the algorithms that compute them to a given precision that are properties (because they can be encoded finitely, and thus physically), and the precision limits depends on the extent and energy density of the finite region of the universe under consideration.
I was specifically addressing this: If math was really modeling the universe well, we would have whole numbers for constants: e, c, k, pi.
Your comment implies we don't have whole numbers for constants for a good reason, beyond just a choice of a number system. Indeed, you acknowledged this in your response to brantondaveperson below, saying you can't have both pi and e as whole numbers in a single numeric system. What this really implies is that pi and e are each nice and compact characteristics of the physical universe that, if the math was actually representative of said physical universe, ought to be representable in that math as something akin to whole numbers. Of course, they are neither. They are, however, representable in the natural number math quite well: they map directly to the finite algorithms that can compute them to a given precision, whereby the precision limit of the computation (dependent on time and storage) has a dual in the physical universe--the constraints imposed by a finite spacial extent and finite energy density mentioned in my post above. Pi and e to arbitrary precision are not properties of any finite portion of the physical universe; only the finitely-encodable algorithms that compute them are.
The question is whether physics exhibits some signature of an incomplete simulation by a concrete machine with characteristics familiar to us.
Yes, and it depends on exactly what is meant by "characteristics familiar to us". If the simulation hypothesis is correct, the host 'machine' in question is more likely to share characteristics with our universe's physics that have to do with the nature of computability in a qualitative sense, rather than merely quantitative (and specifically, scalability and efficiency). I don't find it implausible that the similarity doesn't much extend to the latter (but does to the former); if that is the case, it still may be the case that the simulation is imperfect as proposed in the paper.