I think my browser (Firefox) cried while it was trying to render that table. And my computer isn't that slow (C2Q Q6600 @ 3.0 GhZ). That was ridiculous.
The summary neglects to mention that the third party inks failed in sunlight, but were fine in indoor or controlled storage conditions. It's still something to consider, but nearly as bad as the summary makes it out to be. Tons of photo processes produce photos that'll fade in a year of sunlight, so it's reasonable you'd have to put in a little more expense there for pigments instead of dyes.
I think their benchmarks give too much weight to the quad core processors. It's still the case that most applications that people use don't really use more than two cores at once.
Wouldn't having it be powered by vibrations make flight stability that much harder? Most of those devices have a mass that is free to move along one axis which has oscillatory motion. Seems like a device like that would dampen wing beats and other motions that would be important for flight.
Most of it sounds great, but "If someone does happen to gain access to your flash drive and they fail to type in the correct password more than 10 times, IronKey will self-destruct, permanently locking out users and wiping out all the data on the drive."
Seems pretty easy for someone to destroy the drive/data if they wanted to. Even accidentally destroy the drive/data.
At least not how they are implying. Color as most people think of it has to do with absorbed, reflected and transmitted light. The arrangement of the atoms as much as the atoms themselves affect color. But individual atoms in a crystal don't have color, at least as most people understand. The headline makes it seems like you could come away saying, "So iron atoms really are red..." or something equivalently silly.
If you've read Stephen Levitt's Freakonomics, he attributes a large portion of the drop in crime to Roe v Wade. He states that there were a lot less unwanted children after that point, and those are the people who are most likely to end up as criminals. There's more to the discussion including that part of the drop could be attributed to increases in numbers of police and other things. It's an interesting read even if you don't agree with it.
Because laboratory machines are tools built for the job and last a comparatively long time... I've never had any qualms about paying $100-200 for a magnetic stir plate in a lab, because I know the stir plate will last the length of my professors tenure and then some. There are some stir plates in our building from the 60s and 70s. They'll stir 24/7 for literally years without stopping or overheating and it won't stop because you spill something on them. Granted a stirplate is pretty simple compared to most lab equipment, but the point is still the same.
This device sounds like a visible spectrometer. You shine light through something and see how much comes out. The concentration of the absorbing material is proportional to the negative log of the fraction of the light that passes through and is also proportional to the pathlength the light travels through the material. Pretty simple in principle...you could use a flashlight and a photodiode and you have a spec. Even daylight and your eyes would work if you had a good set of standards. But that doesn't mean the your makeshift spec will do a good job. Can it do a variety of wavelengths? Can it detect different wavelengths? What is the smallest wavelength increment it can measure? How little light can it detect? Can you change the pathlength? Can it record data to a computer easily? Can it handle large quantities of samples without user interaction? Can it hold the sample at a specific temperature or cycle the temperature?
If you want to say yes to all those questions, and want something reliable, and you don't want to spend hours and hours of labor assembling something then you pay for the proper tool for the job. If this instrument is in fact a visible spectrometer, there are tons of specs that cost MUCH less than 10000 euros/dollars, it's just they have different sets of features.
I don't think it's newsworthy to say that you didn't have to go to the hardware store to buy a screwdriver when you discovered that a butterknife could do the same job at a lower cost...
""We can't use water as a reference since the molecules in the water are constantly splitting into ions and reforming as molecules."
OK, exactly how far up your ass did you have to reach to pull that one out?
See, we have this thing called "The First Law of Thermodynamics." At the molecular scale, water molecules don't just decide to break up and go their own way willy-nilly, not the least because both elements involved (hydrogen and oxygen) really don't like being alone (the two hydrogen atoms can go off on their own merry way as a diatomic molecule, but the oxygen will be lonely). Breaking molecular bonds in water takes energy, otherwise cracking water to produce hydrogen would be more cost-effective than cracking methanol (the carbon atoms have a more independent personality and are better able to get over any rejection issues it might have).
Beyond that, even if the energy to crack an individual water molecule were as trivially small as you believe, the energy would have to come from somewhere. Cracking water is endothermic, but so is making it (oxygen atoms, at least, need to be pried apart against their will first, assuming they're not in some kinky threeway), but even if one of those two reactions was exothermic, the energy required to do one act must necessarily equal the energy released by the other, meaning a net change in energy, and a net change in the number of water molecules, of zero."
First, I'm with you for the most part on your listing of reasons as to why water isn't a good reference standard, but there's no need to insult the OP, especially since he or she is not totally wrong.
Water molecules do 'just decide to break up and go their own way willy-nilly.' It's dynamic equilbrium:
H2O H+ + OH-
So the forward rate of dissociation is equal to the reverse rate of recombination at equilibrium. So at any given time there are tons of water molecules 'just' dissociating. You're right that the net rate of reaction as written is zero, which is why it's called equilibrium. But the reactions are still happening. You even sort of say this in the next paragraph.
Also two protons (not hydrogen atoms) can't go off and form their own hydrogen molecule, because they are missing something important...two electrons which are still hanging out with the two OH- ions. You can reduce the H+ to H(0) and then if those two H(0) are really close to each other (i.e. at the surface of a catalyst) or if there is a really high concentration of them, then they'll form hydrogen. The original poster's comment had nothing to do with 'cracking water' anyway, so I don't know why it was brought into the discussion.
Also it can't be that 'cracking water' and forming water are both endothermic reactions. If they are the reverse of each other, then the change in enthalpy of one is the negative change of enthalpy in the other. (Just as you say in your next sentence) Maybe you mean forming water has an activation energy which has to be overcome for the reaction to start? But that has nothing to do with the original poster's comment either.
Also you say the problem is maintaining the purity of water after it cools from steam. Well, isn't that the point?? Who cares about pure steam - it isn't water.
There's just no need to jump on the original poster about being wrong in a condescending tone, when in fact, he/she wasn't really that wrong and then follow that up with an explanation filled with inaccuracies. Bottom line is "molecules in the water are constantly splitting into ions and reforming as molecules." That's a fact.
34000 km^2 is 10 times bigger than Rhode Island. That's a lot of area. But then again, there were 93 million acres of corn planted in the US last year. That comes out to 380000 km^2. Now if we can just turn those corn subsidies into algae subsidies...and find a massive amount of water to grow the algae in.
DCA is one of several haloacetic acids (HAA) that are disinfection byproducts (DBPs) water. When chlorine (or chloramine) are added to natural water to kill microorgamisms, the chlorine reacts with natural organic matter in the water to produce several byproducts, most notably trihalomethanes (THMs) and HAAs. The other HAAs have different levels of bromine and chlorine substitution. Disinfection byproducts are regulated because they may increase your cancer risk (surprise!). It's a problem because drinking water represents a chronic exposure.
The regulated concentration of DBPs is several orders of magnitude below the doses of DCA that are listed in the linked articles, so don't count on getting (or killing) cancer from your drinking water.
"How much you wanna bet the MPAA and RIIA are also reading this article. Thanks guys. Not only do you independently show which sites engage in copyright enfringement but also how much each site does that (on a daily basis no less)"
When you consider the amount of money those organizations spend on curbing piracy, it's hard to imagine they need to rely on the so-so research of a blogger. I'd imagine they hire a consulting company, and get a real, comprehensive report. Say one that covers the actual content and level activity of the torrents on the sites. By the criteria listed in this blog summary, I could create a site with good features and 10000 dummy torrents a day and earn editors choice.
In addition to your point, an increase in hardware demand (XP on a Mac) more directly leads to an increase in hardware sales than when you compare software (OS X on PCs) in the same situation. It's because of piracy. That's not to say people don't buy software, but that you can't pirate hardware.
The amount of water already in the air and water released by natural evaporation absolutely dwarfs the amount of water released through combustion. Should we start covering up lakes too? On top of that the environmental impact of humidity change is insignificant compared to the impact of all the other compounds released in combustion.
I think that the range of motion and change of inertia on a mouse is pretty small. Small enough that you wouldn't get much power unless you had a large weight inside the mouse to increase the inertia.
Motion powered wristwatches make more sense, because of the speed and range at which your wrist moves when you are walking or running. Plus with mice wireless transmission and maybe even optical tracking take a decent amount of power (at least in terms of the power levels we're talking about.)
Going slightly off the topic of number of mouse buttons, from my experience it's not the best for your wrist to leave it parked on the desk while you use your fingers to move the mouse. I had problems with mousing when I had the heel of my hand on the desk/mousepad, because my wrist was bent up while I was mousing. Add in some high tension frantic game playing and I started getting wrist pain until I switched up my grip. I also was cutting down on my circulation in the whole area because of the pressure on the heel of my hand. Anyway, now I mouse with most of my hand on top of the mouse, and my forearm/elbow as the contact point on the desk. Ideally my whole arm is in the air, but that gets tiring really fast.
I know this could easily be different for different people, but I thought I'd throw out my cautionary tale about mousing with the base of your hand on the desk/pad.
If they are going to claim it's better then they should at least produce something comparable in quality. The main problem, that someone else mentioned here was the camera work. The they probably had a tracked camera for the honda commercial, not a person frantically running around trying to keep up with the events. Also a lot of the pieces of the system moved too fast. You could barely see a few of the balls that moved from place to place because they were moving fast so the camera moved fast to track with them, which left a nice blur for us to look at. Those things on top of the professional look of the Honda commercial vs the college dorm room look of this setup made the whole thing way disappointing.
All that said. I'm sure it took a *lot* of time and effort, it was cool to watch. It's just annoying for them to say 'ours is better' just to get more attention. If they had just said, here's a cool rube goldberg contraption, take a look, I wouldn't have been let down at all.
We had a guest speaker in our department last year that talked about how engineering and politics don't end up meshing well together, and that Kyoto was a prime example.
http://ficp.engr.utexas.edu/celectures/schwartz/ (should be some converted powerpoint and video)
In the first third of the lecture he talks about how Kyoto is a politically designed document, and not a sensibly designed document in terms of engineering. The choice of a base year (1990, I think) for emission reductions is particulary bad for the US, since emissions reductions plan were already in effect. Countries in Eastern Europe and Asia had little or no emissions control at the time, so they have reduced their emissions greatly over the past 15 years. It's almost as if they US is getting penalized for being proactive earlier. To reduce US emissions by as much as Russia has to would be crazy. The US already had catalytic converters in cars in 1990, are they supposed to have two sets now? The same goes for manufacturing emissions controls.
I'm not saying that the US shouldn't sign it or they shouldn't have at least gone back to the negotiating table, but it's just not as simple as "Americans don't care about the environment." Why should Americans have to pay to cut down emissions an additional 10 percent when a large portion of the world is getting credit for cutting their first 10?
(10% is a made up number, didn't have time to look up the exact stats)
If a significant fraction of people start driving smaller cars, then they could easily mark off a few lanes for small car traffic like HOV lanes are marked now. As long as they don't physically separate traffic flow (and access) then it really won't cost them much to make the change at any time. Maybe some signs, paint, and highway patrol salaries.
The summary is about a new P2P application which is an extension and possible improvement of an already popular P2P application. It happens that the people writing it run a big site geared to piracy, and they intend to us this software to ease the load on their site. But that doesn't really matter.
If a group of people came up with a better search engine operation than Google would you object to that news just because they were planning to use it to search for porn or warez?
The reason it's on/. is that it's a new P2P app. The rest is just background material.
Worth reading the article...
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 4, Informative
to catch the things that aren't in the summary.
This isn't a generic vaccine that's created in mass and given to everyone. The 'vaccine' is generated using viruses and dendrites from the specific patient. So it has to be done for each person. It reduces viral loads, but doesn't eliminate the infection.
Still it sounds really promising, but there's a LOT of work that would need to be done before this got anywhere close to general use. Also the article doesn't say how complex/expensive the process is per person. It doesn't sound like it's third world friendly, at least at the moment.
> It has always amazed me that so many animals hiberate, but we can figure out how to translate that into humans.
I think there's been some work on studying hibernation, but even if we get a really good understanding of how it works, that doesn't mean that we can translate it to humans easily. A crude comparison would be to say that since we now how birds fly we should be able to make humans fly... There are genetically coded mechanisms in place that allow for hibernation and it's not trivial to recreate those mechanisms without the genes in place.
Also hibernation implies that there is still metabolic activity, but it's slower than normal. For an organ to be hibernation, you would still need to provide it oxygen and nutrients, just at a much lower rate than you normally would.
Not to say that it can't be done, but we are far from hibernation for humans and even farther from true metabolic suspension (which no animals do).
Movielink may have a more market share, but when I see this: "Sorry, but in order to enjoy the Movielink service you must use Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher, which supports certain technologies we utilize for downloading movies" followed by
"We do not anticipate supporting Mozilla or Netscape in the near future." I know I won't be signing up there, and I assume a large fraction of the/. crowd won't be either. Not having good browser support is bad, but then saying you aren't even planning to change that is worse.
Slashdot Mirror
I think my browser (Firefox) cried while it was trying to render that table. And my computer isn't that slow (C2Q Q6600 @ 3.0 GhZ). That was ridiculous.
The summary neglects to mention that the third party inks failed in sunlight, but were fine in indoor or controlled storage conditions. It's still something to consider, but nearly as bad as the summary makes it out to be. Tons of photo processes produce photos that'll fade in a year of sunlight, so it's reasonable you'd have to put in a little more expense there for pigments instead of dyes.
Super PI measures real world performance?
I think their benchmarks give too much weight to the quad core processors. It's still the case that most applications that people use don't really use more than two cores at once.
Wouldn't having it be powered by vibrations make flight stability that much harder? Most of those devices have a mass that is free to move along one axis which has oscillatory motion. Seems like a device like that would dampen wing beats and other motions that would be important for flight.
Most of it sounds great, but "If someone does happen to gain access to your flash drive and they fail to type in the correct password more than 10 times, IronKey will self-destruct, permanently locking out users and wiping out all the data on the drive."
Seems pretty easy for someone to destroy the drive/data if they wanted to. Even accidentally destroy the drive/data.
At least not how they are implying. Color as most people think of it has to do with absorbed, reflected and transmitted light. The arrangement of the atoms as much as the atoms themselves affect color. But individual atoms in a crystal don't have color, at least as most people understand. The headline makes it seems like you could come away saying, "So iron atoms really are red..." or something equivalently silly.
If you've read Stephen Levitt's Freakonomics, he attributes a large portion of the drop in crime to Roe v Wade. He states that there were a lot less unwanted children after that point, and those are the people who are most likely to end up as criminals. There's more to the discussion including that part of the drop could be attributed to increases in numbers of police and other things. It's an interesting read even if you don't agree with it.
Because laboratory machines are tools built for the job and last a comparatively long time... I've never had any qualms about paying $100-200 for a magnetic stir plate in a lab, because I know the stir plate will last the length of my professors tenure and then some. There are some stir plates in our building from the 60s and 70s. They'll stir 24/7 for literally years without stopping or overheating and it won't stop because you spill something on them. Granted a stirplate is pretty simple compared to most lab equipment, but the point is still the same.
This device sounds like a visible spectrometer. You shine light through something and see how much comes out. The concentration of the absorbing material is proportional to the negative log of the fraction of the light that passes through and is also proportional to the pathlength the light travels through the material. Pretty simple in principle...you could use a flashlight and a photodiode and you have a spec. Even daylight and your eyes would work if you had a good set of standards. But that doesn't mean the your makeshift spec will do a good job. Can it do a variety of wavelengths? Can it detect different wavelengths? What is the smallest wavelength increment it can measure? How little light can it detect? Can you change the pathlength? Can it record data to a computer easily? Can it handle large quantities of samples without user interaction? Can it hold the sample at a specific temperature or cycle the temperature?
If you want to say yes to all those questions, and want something reliable, and you don't want to spend hours and hours of labor assembling something then you pay for the proper tool for the job. If this instrument is in fact a visible spectrometer, there are tons of specs that cost MUCH less than 10000 euros/dollars, it's just they have different sets of features.
I don't think it's newsworthy to say that you didn't have to go to the hardware store to buy a screwdriver when you discovered that a butterknife could do the same job at a lower cost...
""We can't use water as a reference since the molecules in the water are constantly splitting into ions and reforming as molecules."
OK, exactly how far up your ass did you have to reach to pull that one out?
See, we have this thing called "The First Law of Thermodynamics." At the molecular scale, water molecules don't just decide to break up and go their own way willy-nilly, not the least because both elements involved (hydrogen and oxygen) really don't like being alone (the two hydrogen atoms can go off on their own merry way as a diatomic molecule, but the oxygen will be lonely). Breaking molecular bonds in water takes energy, otherwise cracking water to produce hydrogen would be more cost-effective than cracking methanol (the carbon atoms have a more independent personality and are better able to get over any rejection issues it might have).
Beyond that, even if the energy to crack an individual water molecule were as trivially small as you believe, the energy would have to come from somewhere. Cracking water is endothermic, but so is making it (oxygen atoms, at least, need to be pried apart against their will first, assuming they're not in some kinky threeway), but even if one of those two reactions was exothermic, the energy required to do one act must necessarily equal the energy released by the other, meaning a net change in energy, and a net change in the number of water molecules, of zero."
First, I'm with you for the most part on your listing of reasons as to why water isn't a good reference standard, but there's no need to insult the OP, especially since he or she is not totally wrong.
Water molecules do 'just decide to break up and go their own way willy-nilly.' It's dynamic equilbrium:
H2O H+ + OH-
So the forward rate of dissociation is equal to the reverse rate of recombination at equilibrium. So at any given time there are tons of water molecules 'just' dissociating. You're right that the net rate of reaction as written is zero, which is why it's called equilibrium. But the reactions are still happening. You even sort of say this in the next paragraph.
Also two protons (not hydrogen atoms) can't go off and form their own hydrogen molecule, because they are missing something important...two electrons which are still hanging out with the two OH- ions. You can reduce the H+ to H(0) and then if those two H(0) are really close to each other (i.e. at the surface of a catalyst) or if there is a really high concentration of them, then they'll form hydrogen. The original poster's comment had nothing to do with 'cracking water' anyway, so I don't know why it was brought into the discussion.
Also it can't be that 'cracking water' and forming water are both endothermic reactions. If they are the reverse of each other, then the change in enthalpy of one is the negative change of enthalpy in the other. (Just as you say in your next sentence) Maybe you mean forming water has an activation energy which has to be overcome for the reaction to start? But that has nothing to do with the original poster's comment either.
Also you say the problem is maintaining the purity of water after it cools from steam. Well, isn't that the point?? Who cares about pure steam - it isn't water.
There's just no need to jump on the original poster about being wrong in a condescending tone, when in fact, he/she wasn't really that wrong and then follow that up with an explanation filled with inaccuracies. Bottom line is "molecules in the water are constantly splitting into ions and reforming as molecules." That's a fact.
34000 km^2 is 10 times bigger than Rhode Island. That's a lot of area. But then again, there were 93 million acres of corn planted in the US last year. That comes out to 380000 km^2. Now if we can just turn those corn subsidies into algae subsidies...and find a massive amount of water to grow the algae in.
DCA is one of several haloacetic acids (HAA) that are disinfection byproducts (DBPs) water. When chlorine (or chloramine) are added to natural water to kill microorgamisms, the chlorine reacts with natural organic matter in the water to produce several byproducts, most notably trihalomethanes (THMs) and HAAs. The other HAAs have different levels of bromine and chlorine substitution. Disinfection byproducts are regulated because they may increase your cancer risk (surprise!). It's a problem because drinking water represents a chronic exposure.
The regulated concentration of DBPs is several orders of magnitude below the doses of DCA that are listed in the linked articles, so don't count on getting (or killing) cancer from your drinking water.
List of common Drinking Water Contaminants
"How much you wanna bet the MPAA and RIIA are also reading this article. Thanks guys. Not only do you independently show which sites engage in copyright enfringement but also how much each site does that (on a daily basis no less)"
When you consider the amount of money those organizations spend on curbing piracy, it's hard to imagine they need to rely on the so-so research of a blogger. I'd imagine they hire a consulting company, and get a real, comprehensive report. Say one that covers the actual content and level activity of the torrents on the sites. By the criteria listed in this blog summary, I could create a site with good features and 10000 dummy torrents a day and earn editors choice.
In addition to your point, an increase in hardware demand (XP on a Mac) more directly leads to an increase in hardware sales than when you compare software (OS X on PCs) in the same situation. It's because of piracy. That's not to say people don't buy software, but that you can't pirate hardware.
The amount of water already in the air and water released by natural evaporation absolutely dwarfs the amount of water released through combustion. Should we start covering up lakes too? On top of that the environmental impact of humidity change is insignificant compared to the impact of all the other compounds released in combustion.
I think that the range of motion and change of inertia on a mouse is pretty small. Small enough that you wouldn't get much power unless you had a large weight inside the mouse to increase the inertia.
Motion powered wristwatches make more sense, because of the speed and range at which your wrist moves when you are walking or running. Plus with mice wireless transmission and maybe even optical tracking take a decent amount of power (at least in terms of the power levels we're talking about.)
Going slightly off the topic of number of mouse buttons, from my experience it's not the best for your wrist to leave it parked on the desk while you use your fingers to move the mouse. I had problems with mousing when I had the heel of my hand on the desk/mousepad, because my wrist was bent up while I was mousing. Add in some high tension frantic game playing and I started getting wrist pain until I switched up my grip. I also was cutting down on my circulation in the whole area because of the pressure on the heel of my hand. Anyway, now I mouse with most of my hand on top of the mouse, and my forearm/elbow as the contact point on the desk. Ideally my whole arm is in the air, but that gets tiring really fast.
I know this could easily be different for different people, but I thought I'd throw out my cautionary tale about mousing with the base of your hand on the desk/pad.
If they are going to claim it's better then they should at least produce something comparable in quality. The main problem, that someone else mentioned here was the camera work. The they probably had a tracked camera for the honda commercial, not a person frantically running around trying to keep up with the events. Also a lot of the pieces of the system moved too fast. You could barely see a few of the balls that moved from place to place because they were moving fast so the camera moved fast to track with them, which left a nice blur for us to look at. Those things on top of the professional look of the Honda commercial vs the college dorm room look of this setup made the whole thing way disappointing.
All that said. I'm sure it took a *lot* of time and effort, it was cool to watch. It's just annoying for them to say 'ours is better' just to get more attention. If they had just said, here's a cool rube goldberg contraption, take a look, I wouldn't have been let down at all.
We had a guest speaker in our department last year that talked about how engineering and politics don't end up meshing well together, and that Kyoto was a prime example.
/
http://ficp.engr.utexas.edu/celectures/schwartz
(should be some converted powerpoint and video)
In the first third of the lecture he talks about how Kyoto is a politically designed document, and not a sensibly designed document in terms of engineering. The choice of a base year (1990, I think) for emission reductions is particulary bad for the US, since emissions reductions plan were already in effect. Countries in Eastern Europe and Asia had little or no emissions control at the time, so they have reduced their emissions greatly over the past 15 years. It's almost as if they US is getting penalized for being proactive earlier. To reduce US emissions by as much as Russia has to would be crazy. The US already had catalytic converters in cars in 1990, are they supposed to have two sets now? The same goes for manufacturing emissions controls.
I'm not saying that the US shouldn't sign it or they shouldn't have at least gone back to the negotiating table, but it's just not as simple as "Americans don't care about the environment." Why should Americans have to pay to cut down emissions an additional 10 percent when a large portion of the world is getting credit for cutting their first 10?
(10% is a made up number, didn't have time to look up the exact stats)
Win 3.1 can't even address 8 GB of RAM, right?
"single-person ultralight vehicles"
You mean like motorcycles?
If a significant fraction of people start driving smaller cars, then they could easily mark off a few lanes for small car traffic like HOV lanes are marked now. As long as they don't physically separate traffic flow (and access) then it really won't cost them much to make the change at any time. Maybe some signs, paint, and highway patrol salaries.
The summary is about a new P2P application which is an extension and possible improvement of an already popular P2P application. It happens that the people writing it run a big site geared to piracy, and they intend to us this software to ease the load on their site. But that doesn't really matter.
/. is that it's a new P2P app. The rest is just background material.
If a group of people came up with a better search engine operation than Google would you object to that news just because they were planning to use it to search for porn or warez?
The reason it's on
to catch the things that aren't in the summary.
This isn't a generic vaccine that's created in mass and given to everyone. The 'vaccine' is generated using viruses and dendrites from the specific patient. So it has to be done for each person. It reduces viral loads, but doesn't eliminate the infection.
Still it sounds really promising, but there's a LOT of work that would need to be done before this got anywhere close to general use. Also the article doesn't say how complex/expensive the process is per person. It doesn't sound like it's third world friendly, at least at the moment.
http://ramk.net/archives/000065.html
Hours of fun with this one.
> It has always amazed me that so many animals hiberate, but we can figure out how to translate that into humans.
I think there's been some work on studying hibernation, but even if we get a really good understanding of how it works, that doesn't mean that we can translate it to humans easily. A crude comparison would be to say that since we now how birds fly we should be able to make humans fly... There are genetically coded mechanisms in place that allow for hibernation and it's not trivial to recreate those mechanisms without the genes in place.
Also hibernation implies that there is still metabolic activity, but it's slower than normal. For an organ to be hibernation, you would still need to provide it oxygen and nutrients, just at a much lower rate than you normally would.
Not to say that it can't be done, but we are far from hibernation for humans and even farther from true metabolic suspension (which no animals do).
Movielink may have a more market share, but when I see this: /. crowd won't be either. Not having good browser support is bad, but then saying you aren't even planning to change that is worse.
"Sorry, but in order to enjoy the Movielink service you must use Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher, which supports certain technologies we utilize for downloading movies"
followed by
"We do not anticipate supporting Mozilla or Netscape in the near future."
I know I won't be signing up there, and I assume a large fraction of the