As an incidental result, I have IR imagery showing that your hand increases temperature by almost 0.5C if you hold it still for about two minutes. And yet, the authors conclude that your cell phone is increasing the temperature of your sperm significantly? Idiodcy!
Let's do a simple analysis: Cell phone draws ~300 mA while in use. For conservative reasons, assume that this power is all RF. The battery is 3.6 V, so a total of 1W is being released by the phone. Since the antenna is nondirectional, the intensity of the phone is 0.08 Watts per steradian. Typical testacles are aprroximately 1 millsteradian (you do the math), so a total of 80 microwatts of power are being delivered in the direction of the talker's balls. Note that only a tiny fraction of that power is actually absorbed since people are essentially transparent to RF radiation. Since I know nothing about circulation, I can't convert that into a temperature difference. However, zero degrees seems like a pretty accurate guess. As a matter of comparison, the balls of a naked sunbather absorb over one watt of solar power from a zenith sun. Wearing shorts probably only reduces that by 90% or so.
Looks like the authors need some more realistic theories: 1. People who talk over four hours a day on the cell phone are coffee and alcohol-fueled stress buckets 2. holding up the phone screws up circulation (good theory from Plover) 3. Men talk on the cell phone becuase they are reproductively inadequate.
The work presented in the Nature article represents an incremental step towards applied quantum computing. There is no mention of "byte" in the Nature article. I suspect that the use of "byte" in the linked article is an abstraction created by a semi-technical promotional writer.
The primary interest of the result is demonstration of the fidelity of 6, 7, and 8 particle entanglements. No applied computing is done, nor is there any particular reason why they stopped at eight particles except that it appears to be the practical limit of the current engineering.
You may get wind storms, but you (and a large percentage of Americans who are directly threatened by them) are grossly underestimating the power of a Katrina-size hurricane. Selected statistics from Noaa: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqHED.html
Sustained winds of 120+ KPH over a 350-km wide circle; sustained winds of 250 KPH over a 50-km wide circle, with gusts even higher; as much as two meters of rain in one day; a 6-meter storm surge (akin to a tsunami); a total dissipated power of 6.0 x 10^14 Watts.
People foolish enough to weather out even a modest hurricane are often severely traumatized by the experience. If you think you are tough, you are welcome to come try one out this month. Our national guardsmen would be proud to rescue you.
This has absolutely no relevence to remote sensing or long-distance imaging in any way. Evanescent waves are "vanishing waves." That means that they disappear within a few wavelengths of the surface from which they are emitted. The "superlens" must be located close enough to the object to collect evanescent waves in order to work. Thus, the primary application is microscopy.
AC has given the best answer to the parent question. The fundamentalists are so convinced of their doctrine that they fully expect everything in their experience to confirm it. They go to science museums, see the same exhibits we do, and leave with the feeling that their doctrine was supported.
Problems only arise when very specific text or narrative directly contradicts their world-view, e.g., by directly discussing evolution.
As a result we get dumbed-down museums in the south. In the drive to maximize the experience of all patrons, the museums present exhibits without the controversial interpretive material.
CV
Is it morally acceptable for a group of people to require their fellow citizens for fork over tax dollars at the point of a gun to pay for a service they don't all want to use?
Yes. The intangible benefits of the program to the population as a whole are also relevant. A municipality can consider the economic benefit of having a free wireless network for all. For example, the network could bring in new businesses. Even if Joe doesn't use the internet, he might get a job with one of those companies.
Think of public transportation and municipal airports. If I don't ride or fly, I still think they are useful because they are good for the economy. A bigger strecth is education. Even if I don't have kids, a good school system is advantageous to me (property values, business location), so I am willing to pay for it.
I don't know which side of the debate is dumber. The state, the evolutionists, the judges, or the creatonists.
The creationists are dumber. A scientific theory is the highest level of conjecture about a natural phenomenon. A theory has a great body of evidence supporting it, and no counter-evidence disproving it. By pointing out that evolution is a theory, creationists have accidentally lent evolution theory great support.
The judges are to be commended for recognizing that the intent of the sticker was to support a religious belief. My personal feeling is that the greatest harm done by the sticker is to teach children that the terms "scientific theory" and "conjecture" are synonyms.
CV, a cobb co. resident
I get the full week after Christmas off. Christmas and New Years are extra holidays only if they fall on weekdays. So, I only have five days off this year.
I got 7 days off last year. I sandwiched those holidays with three vacation days (conveniently split across two years) to get a full 16 day vacation.
I'd be willing to call it a wash if I get Newton week as a holiday.
I've always postulated that the biggest difference between purely juvenile literature (harry potter) and adult literature is that the former defines the world in good and evil, while the latter has shades of grey.
The ring is a physical manifestation of evil within all men. Boromir and Faromir are the two obvious examples, two ostensibly good men who are tempted by evil.
For such a large volume, there is very little "inner life" to the majority of the characters. However, the central characters of the book are the Hobbits, and they receive a thorough treatment.
Some people seem to confuse GOING to public places with DRIVING to public places.
Here's a hint: one of these things is a natural right which should not be regulated, the other is a privlige with which comes a variety of restrictions and responsibilities.
Previous reply was pretty much correct. When playing eight ball, the goal is to sink all of one's balls, then make the eight ball to win. If you are in an impossible position (i.e. you can't make any of your own balls), the best strategy is to "hide the 8-ball" so that your opponent can't win either.
However, there is no "stalemate" in pool, so your goal in hiding the eight-ball is to allow you (or force your opponent) to move your balls into better positions so that you might win.
The amount of energy is the most important factor determining whether the fusion reaction can occur. You are trying to deliver as much power as you can in as short of a time scale as possible. Conveniently, you can increase the energy by either increasing the power or shortening the pulse.
For you power hogs, the laser might be pulsing many times a second. The pulse rate is rarely given since it is not fundamentally important in research reactors (it certainly would be in a production reactor, however).
Anonymous forums are pretty much useless until the numbers get sufficiently large. It's something along the lines of the "law of large numbers."
I try to use Amazon to check big-ticket items before I buy, irrelevant of where I buy them. If there are only a few reviews, I give little credence to what the reviewers have to say. If there are 10 or more reviews, you will often find a consistency among the threads even though they are written in diverse styles. At that point, the information becomes useful. If the same person wrote many of the reviews, it's not hard to tell.
For example, I had a crappy ice cream maker. I checked Amazon's reviews, and my appliance had about fifty. At least ten of them had exactly the same problem I did, and that is plenty to determine that the product is Not Worth It.
Has anyone tried to *say* CEV? Chev? Chevy? How are we supposed to pronounce it? I swear, it sounds like a suppository.
Now I have to go home and cry, you bully!
Re:So instead
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I AM an optical scientist, so I'll fill in a few gaps that are not covered in the article, and are often misrepresented. The phenomenology of propagation through the atmosphere is very different for longwave infrared, visible (& shortwave infrared), and ultraviolet (UV). That is why it is possible to have global warming with decreasing sunlight, and increasing UV.
NOTE: when I say 'atmosphere,' I mean the part where most of the air is, i.e., just the stratosphere and troposphere. Don't be a snot about the "exosphere".
1. Most of the energy reaching the earth from the sun is in the visible and near IR wavelengths. The atmosphere is nearly transparent to these wavelengths, so a lot of the sun's energy reaches the surface of the earth. Scattering from particulates (e.g. pollution, volcanic material, water particles, etc.) is the primary loss mechanism for sunlight. Most of these particulates are close to the ground, or well-distributed through the atmosphere. Therefore, nearly all of the sunlight gets close to the earth.
2. Dangerously short wavelengths (cosmic rays, x-rays, gamma rays, hard UV) are scattered and absorbed at the cusp of earth's atmosphere. Almost none reaches even the lower atmosphere. Soft UV is predominantly absorbed by ozone. The atmosphere itself scatters short wavelengths very well (thus, blue sky).
3. Excepting a few 'windows', the atmosphere is opaque to longwave infrared light. Earth emits long-wave IR light due to its low temperature. Longwave IR light from is absorbed in the atmosphere, preventing the earth from cooling itself. This is the 'greenhouse effect.' Since the atmosphere is so opaque to longwave-IR, the greenhouse 'panes' are pretty much at the edge of the atmosphere.
4. The article presents research which raises the possiblity that increased pollution (possibly) is causing more solar energy to be absorbed in the lower atmosphere. Global warming is still possible since the lower atmposphere is still 'inside' the greenhouse, so the extra abosrbed energy is still contributing to heating. UV light is being absorbed by the particulates as well, but not enough to offset the damage done to the ozone layer.
6. Do I believe the article? A little bit. The main point is that a previously crazy idea was corroberated very well by a second, independent measurement (evaporation). Two improper experiments are much less likely than one. Still, 10% seems pretty big.
I don't understand why the voter should have the option of rejecting the paper printout. The voter is given the opportunity to electronically verify his vote before it is cast. He may then verify the paper receipt through a window (or whatever). He does not need the ability to re-confirm the vote after it is cast.
If the paper receipt does not match his vote, one may safely assume that the machine is broken or fraud has occurred. In that case, allowing the voter to reject the ballot does not "fix" the problem. The only solution is to remove the machine from service (disallowing the last recorded vote, of course).
Slashdot Mirror
forged from: bogus@[domain]
to: bogus@[domain]
You have bandwidth issues.
As an incidental result, I have IR imagery showing that your hand increases temperature by almost 0.5C if you hold it still for about two minutes. And yet, the authors conclude that your cell phone is increasing the temperature of your sperm significantly? Idiodcy!
Let's do a simple analysis:
Cell phone draws ~300 mA while in use. For conservative reasons, assume that this power is all RF. The battery is 3.6 V, so a total of 1W is being released by the phone. Since the antenna is nondirectional, the intensity of the phone is 0.08 Watts per steradian. Typical testacles are aprroximately 1 millsteradian (you do the math), so a total of 80 microwatts of power are being delivered in the direction of the talker's balls. Note that only a tiny fraction of that power is actually absorbed since people are essentially transparent to RF radiation. Since I know nothing about circulation, I can't convert that into a temperature difference. However, zero degrees seems like a pretty accurate guess. As a matter of comparison, the balls of a naked sunbather absorb over one watt of solar power from a zenith sun. Wearing shorts probably only reduces that by 90% or so.
Looks like the authors need some more realistic theories:
1. People who talk over four hours a day on the cell phone are coffee and alcohol-fueled stress buckets
2. holding up the phone screws up circulation (good theory from Plover)
3. Men talk on the cell phone becuase they are reproductively inadequate.
CV
The work presented in the Nature article represents an incremental step towards applied quantum computing. There is no mention of "byte" in the Nature article. I suspect that the use of "byte" in the linked article is an abstraction created by a semi-technical promotional writer.
The primary interest of the result is demonstration of the fidelity of 6, 7, and 8 particle entanglements. No applied computing is done, nor is there any particular reason why they stopped at eight particles except that it appears to be the practical limit of the current engineering.
CV
While you're at it, you can add the same factor for converting earth oil/coal into fossil fuel for the power plant. It's a wash.
CV
You may get wind storms, but you (and a large percentage of Americans who are directly threatened by them) are grossly underestimating the power of a Katrina-size hurricane. Selected statistics from Noaa:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqHED.html
Sustained winds of 120+ KPH over a 350-km wide circle; sustained winds of 250 KPH over a 50-km wide circle, with gusts even higher; as much as two meters of rain in one day; a 6-meter storm surge (akin to a tsunami); a total dissipated power of 6.0 x 10^14 Watts.
People foolish enough to weather out even a modest hurricane are often severely traumatized by the experience. If you think you are tough, you are welcome to come try one out this month. Our national guardsmen would be proud to rescue you.
CV
This has absolutely no relevence to remote sensing or long-distance imaging in any way. Evanescent waves are "vanishing waves." That means that they disappear within a few wavelengths of the surface from which they are emitted. The "superlens" must be located close enough to the object to collect evanescent waves in order to work. Thus, the primary application is microscopy.
CV
AC has given the best answer to the parent question. The fundamentalists are so convinced of their doctrine that they fully expect everything in their experience to confirm it. They go to science museums, see the same exhibits we do, and leave with the feeling that their doctrine was supported. Problems only arise when very specific text or narrative directly contradicts their world-view, e.g., by directly discussing evolution. As a result we get dumbed-down museums in the south. In the drive to maximize the experience of all patrons, the museums present exhibits without the controversial interpretive material. CV
Is it morally acceptable for a group of people to require their fellow citizens for fork over tax dollars at the point of a gun to pay for a service they don't all want to use?
Yes. The intangible benefits of the program to the population as a whole are also relevant. A municipality can consider the economic benefit of having a free wireless network for all. For example, the network could bring in new businesses. Even if Joe doesn't use the internet, he might get a job with one of those companies.
Think of public transportation and municipal airports. If I don't ride or fly, I still think they are useful because they are good for the economy. A bigger strecth is education. Even if I don't have kids, a good school system is advantageous to me (property values, business location), so I am willing to pay for it.
CV
I don't know which side of the debate is dumber. The state, the evolutionists, the judges, or the creatonists.
The creationists are dumber. A scientific theory is the highest level of conjecture about a natural phenomenon. A theory has a great body of evidence supporting it, and no counter-evidence disproving it. By pointing out that evolution is a theory, creationists have accidentally lent evolution theory great support.
The judges are to be commended for recognizing that the intent of the sticker was to support a religious belief. My personal feeling is that the greatest harm done by the sticker is to teach children that the terms "scientific theory" and "conjecture" are synonyms.
CV, a cobb co. resident
I'd rather there be a whole chapter or two on critical, skeptical thinking. I think that'd be a much better use of all of our time.
In a science text, that chapter is called "introduction." CV
I get the full week after Christmas off. Christmas and New Years are extra holidays only if they fall on weekdays. So, I only have five days off this year.
I got 7 days off last year. I sandwiched those holidays with three vacation days (conveniently split across two years) to get a full 16 day vacation.
I'd be willing to call it a wash if I get Newton week as a holiday.
http://www.utilities.cornell.edu/EIS/ExecSummar
Lake water cooling was pioneered by Cornell University at the end of the 90's, using water from Cayuga lake:
http://www.utilities.cornell.edu/EIS/ExecSummar
This document is a prospectus, but the project is completed and operating as expected.
(1). Annual lake heating is equivalent to 3-4 hours of sunshine once per year (0.1% of total heating)
(2) The project saves 80% of the previous cooling costs.
CV
Actually, it's the word "nucular" that freaks people out.
I'll bite.
I've always postulated that the biggest difference between purely juvenile literature (harry potter) and adult literature is that the former defines the world in good and evil, while the latter has shades of grey.
The ring is a physical manifestation of evil within all men. Boromir and Faromir are the two obvious examples, two ostensibly good men who are tempted by evil.
For such a large volume, there is very little "inner life" to the majority of the characters. However, the central characters of the book are the Hobbits, and they receive a thorough treatment.
CV
I'm curious.
1. How does one know how fast you are driving from an RFID?
2. How does one know that you are even driving the car from an RFID?
CV
Some people seem to confuse GOING to public places with DRIVING to public places.
Here's a hint: one of these things is a natural right which should not be regulated, the other is a privlige with which comes a variety of restrictions and responsibilities.
CV
Previous reply was pretty much correct. When playing eight ball, the goal is to sink all of one's balls, then make the eight ball to win. If you are in an impossible position (i.e. you can't make any of your own balls), the best strategy is to "hide the 8-ball" so that your opponent can't win either.
However, there is no "stalemate" in pool, so your goal in hiding the eight-ball is to allow you (or force your opponent) to move your balls into better positions so that you might win.
Perfect analogy.
CV
The amount of energy is the most important factor determining whether the fusion reaction can occur.
You are trying to deliver as much power as you can in as short of a time scale as possible. Conveniently, you can increase the energy by either increasing the power or shortening the pulse.
For you power hogs, the laser might be pulsing many times a second. The pulse rate is rarely given since it is not fundamentally important in research reactors (it certainly would be in a production reactor, however).
CV
Hyponatremia is a big problem for hikers in the grand canyon. An entire group of hikers died of it back in the mid-90's.
http://www.nps.gov/grca/grandcanyon/dayhike/sma
CV
Anonymous forums are pretty much useless until the numbers get sufficiently large. It's something along the lines of the "law of large numbers."
I try to use Amazon to check big-ticket items before I buy, irrelevant of where I buy them. If there are only a few reviews, I give little credence to what the reviewers have to say. If there are 10 or more reviews, you will often find a consistency among the threads even though they are written in diverse styles. At that point, the information becomes useful. If the same person wrote many of the reviews, it's not hard to tell.
For example, I had a crappy ice cream maker. I checked Amazon's reviews, and my appliance had about fifty. At least ten of them had exactly the same problem I did, and that is plenty to determine that the product is Not Worth It.
Has anyone tried to *say* CEV? Chev? Chevy? How are we supposed to pronounce it? I swear, it sounds like a suppository.
Now I have to go home and cry, you bully!
I AM an optical scientist, so I'll fill in a few gaps that are not covered in the article, and are often misrepresented. The phenomenology of propagation through the atmosphere is very different for longwave infrared, visible (& shortwave infrared), and ultraviolet (UV). That is why it is possible to have global warming with decreasing sunlight, and increasing UV.
NOTE: when I say 'atmosphere,' I mean the part where most of the air is, i.e., just the stratosphere and troposphere. Don't be a snot about the "exosphere".
1. Most of the energy reaching the earth from the sun is in the visible and near IR wavelengths. The atmosphere is nearly transparent to these wavelengths, so a lot of the sun's energy reaches the surface of the earth. Scattering from particulates (e.g. pollution, volcanic material, water particles, etc.) is the primary loss mechanism for sunlight. Most of these particulates are close to the ground, or well-distributed through the atmosphere. Therefore, nearly all of the sunlight gets close to the earth.
2. Dangerously short wavelengths (cosmic rays, x-rays, gamma rays, hard UV) are scattered and absorbed at the cusp of earth's atmosphere. Almost none reaches even the lower atmosphere. Soft UV is predominantly absorbed by ozone. The atmosphere itself scatters short wavelengths very well (thus, blue sky).
3. Excepting a few 'windows', the atmosphere is opaque to longwave infrared light. Earth emits long-wave IR light due to its low temperature. Longwave IR light from is absorbed in the atmosphere, preventing the earth from cooling itself. This is the 'greenhouse effect.' Since the atmosphere is so opaque to longwave-IR, the greenhouse 'panes' are pretty much at the edge of the atmosphere.
4. The article presents research which raises the possiblity that increased pollution (possibly) is causing more solar energy to be absorbed in the lower atmosphere. Global warming is still possible since the lower atmposphere is still 'inside' the greenhouse, so the extra abosrbed energy is still contributing to heating. UV light is being absorbed by the particulates as well, but not enough to offset the damage done to the ozone layer.
6. Do I believe the article? A little bit. The main point is that a previously crazy idea was corroberated very well by a second, independent measurement (evaporation). Two improper experiments are much less likely than one. Still, 10% seems pretty big.
CV
My wife teaches dance at a performing-arts HS. She wants an MP3 player to bring music to class instead of lugging around a huge stack of CDs.
CV
I don't understand why the voter should have the option of rejecting the paper printout. The voter is given the opportunity to electronically verify his vote before it is cast. He may then verify the paper receipt through a window (or whatever). He does not need the ability to re-confirm the vote after it is cast.
If the paper receipt does not match his vote, one may safely assume that the machine is broken or fraud has occurred. In that case, allowing the voter to reject the ballot does not "fix" the problem. The only solution is to remove the machine from service (disallowing the last recorded vote, of course).
CV