The "effect" is suspiciously similar to variations in the measured voltage to their detector, the temperature, and also very similar to effects observed by other groups in detector sensitivity, varying with temperature.
I doubt much more study is needed, although it would be good for a decent group of experimentalists (ones who bother to control the voltage to their detectors) to use the same isotope and put it to rest for good. Others have already done so with other isotopes.
The article actually says "corroborated," which I think most people would understand in the context of another person saying the same thing: he corroborated my story. Still, it technically doesn't necessarily imply independent confirmation, so I said implies.
All very true. Except that on their power plot it looks like the daily variation is at least as strong as the annual variation. The number of neutrinos blocked by the planet, and the very, very small difference in distance to the sun, shouldn't add up to anything like the annual variation.
From their paper: "It is clear from the preceding results that the power-spectrum properties of the gamma-detector measurements will be quite different for daytime measurements and nighttime measurements."
I think they've got it there: "properties of the gamma-detector." It also looks like the distance to the sun is at least as out of phase with the count data as the voltage... and they dismiss the latter with barely a mention.
You missed the one where they found a seasonal variation just like this one, but it disappeared when they looked at the ratio of counts for two different elements. The rest of the paper is an analysis of the seasonal variations of their detectors.
I don't have the reference with me, but someone else will probably post it. These guys have notably NOT done the simple experiment of monitoring both Cl and one of the elements they insist don't respond.
Apple wants to sell you devices and has control issues. Google wants to sell you devices, the software they run and the network that connects them, watching everything you do so they can sell it all to their customers.
I was once offered "reasonable consideration" in a contract. I asked if that meant I got a Christmas card every year. I was told there would be no Christmas cards.
"In the long term, something is innovative if we cannot live our daily lives without it."
You're changing definitions to suit your viewpoint just like MBAs do.
An innovation is something new. It doesn't have to be big, it doesn't even have to be better, although the word usually carries that connotation, it just has to be new. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innovation
Designing a web site is generally not innovative. Being the first to use popunders is (although it's also evil).
Aspect. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Oh, and "synergy" isn't a proper noun. Unless somebody named their dog or, god forbid, their kid that. Ditto with "managers", "upper managers" and "example".
"Enterprise" is currently the one I find most irritating. Being a "business" wasn't good enough, so now they have to be "enterprises." If every enterprise had a hard drinking engineer with a heavy Scottish brogue and a womanizing captain I'd understand.
Elite athletes have decreased life spans, although I don't think it's known precisely why. It would be difficult to study regular people because you'd have to know both what kind of exercise they got and what they ate over long periods of time.
Nothing most people have to use regularly. If it's not accessible by a button, by feel, then it's not going to get used much, Android menu or no Android menu.
But seriously, you want to put a multi-core processor and Android in a camera just to make the menus nicer? I'd much rather have my battery actually last through at least the wedding ceremony. Not to mention, the camera companies would probably just implement their same menu system on Android.
- No serious shooter would trade any of his buttons for a touch screen. The buttons are there so you can change things without taking your eye away from the viewfinder.
- Paying the battery/money/heat expense for Android just to fix a few menus?
- Another simple feature to build into an existing OS, if there were a demand for it. There's very little demand, so if you want to do that you buy an accessory. Or just build your own.
- Most DSLRs don't control slave flashes anyway. That's usually an external unit, as it should be. That way you're not beholden to the camera manufacturer's slave system.
A lot of photographers shoot tethered to a laptop for the big screen and essentially unlimited storage. It's not for anything that Android on the camera would do.
Yes, the software on many cameras isn't great, but the solution to that isn't making the thing a general purpose computer. Compared to the OS a camera needs to run Android is big, complicated and requires a lot of expensive hardware. You don't cram all that into a camera just to fix a few UI issues.
Why? I don't really understand why people want their cameras to be general purpose computers to start with. I guess the snapshot set like to be able to post things online right away, but a camera that tethers to your phone, as the summary suggests, seems a better solution for that. But why would I want my DSLR to run Android?
Such as? Apple doesn't keep around ancient APIs like Microsoft does, but they don't break them every couple of years the way some Linux/cross platform GUI systems do. The major API Apple is "infamous" for discontinuing is Carbon, which was released as a transition from OS9, with the clear provision that nobody should write anything new in it, more than a decade ago.
The incompatibilities he's talking about require the source code to be updated. That pisses off developers because it makes maintaining a package too much work. So then they go develop for something else, and the users follow.
I thought the quote in the summary "we broke people's code" gave that away.
Linux is a unix workalike. OS X IS UNIX (to head off the nitpickers, the latest versions aren't certified). So there's POSIX, most of the command line user environment, etc.
Or maybe they're getting a Mac because they like how it works and they need VMWare or Parallels because there are a couple of special purpose Windows programs they need for some backwards class.
Slashdot Mirror
The "effect" is suspiciously similar to variations in the measured voltage to their detector, the temperature, and also very similar to effects observed by other groups in detector sensitivity, varying with temperature.
I doubt much more study is needed, although it would be good for a decent group of experimentalists (ones who bother to control the voltage to their detectors) to use the same isotope and put it to rest for good. Others have already done so with other isotopes.
Read the paper. There's a daily variation as well, which, from the power analysis, looks just as strong as the annual variation.
I said implies, not claims.
The article actually says "corroborated," which I think most people would understand in the context of another person saying the same thing: he corroborated my story. Still, it technically doesn't necessarily imply independent confirmation, so I said implies.
All very true. Except that on their power plot it looks like the daily variation is at least as strong as the annual variation. The number of neutrinos blocked by the planet, and the very, very small difference in distance to the sun, shouldn't add up to anything like the annual variation.
From their paper: "It is clear from the preceding results that the power-spectrum properties of the gamma-detector measurements will be quite different for daytime measurements and nighttime measurements."
I think they've got it there: "properties of the gamma-detector." It also looks like the distance to the sun is at least as out of phase with the count data as the voltage... and they dismiss the latter with barely a mention.
Except that neutrinos don't care much about sunset.
You missed the one where they found a seasonal variation just like this one, but it disappeared when they looked at the ratio of counts for two different elements. The rest of the paper is an analysis of the seasonal variations of their detectors.
I don't have the reference with me, but someone else will probably post it. These guys have notably NOT done the simple experiment of monitoring both Cl and one of the elements they insist don't respond.
They're also both papers from the same guy, contrary to what the article implies.
If that were the case then there wouldn't be a daily variation. Neutrinos don't care much about night.
Apple wants to sell you devices and has control issues. Google wants to sell you devices, the software they run and the network that connects them, watching everything you do so they can sell it all to their customers.
Why would anyone care? During supersonic flight you're going to be going straight and level so you probably wouldn't even notice.
I was once offered "reasonable consideration" in a contract. I asked if that meant I got a Christmas card every year. I was told there would be no Christmas cards.
"In the long term, something is innovative if we cannot live our daily lives without it."
You're changing definitions to suit your viewpoint just like MBAs do.
An innovation is something new. It doesn't have to be big, it doesn't even have to be better, although the word usually carries that connotation, it just has to be new. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innovation
Designing a web site is generally not innovative. Being the first to use popunders is (although it's also evil).
Aspect. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Oh, and "synergy" isn't a proper noun. Unless somebody named their dog or, god forbid, their kid that. Ditto with "managers", "upper managers" and "example".
Clearly MBAs never misuse words.
"Enterprise" is currently the one I find most irritating. Being a "business" wasn't good enough, so now they have to be "enterprises." If every enterprise had a hard drinking engineer with a heavy Scottish brogue and a womanizing captain I'd understand.
Elite athletes have decreased life spans, although I don't think it's known precisely why. It would be difficult to study regular people because you'd have to know both what kind of exercise they got and what they ate over long periods of time.
Nothing most people have to use regularly. If it's not accessible by a button, by feel, then it's not going to get used much, Android menu or no Android menu.
But seriously, you want to put a multi-core processor and Android in a camera just to make the menus nicer? I'd much rather have my battery actually last through at least the wedding ceremony. Not to mention, the camera companies would probably just implement their same menu system on Android.
"I still dont see the issue for open source"
Perhaps that's the problem. The GUI toolkit maintainers didn't see the issue either.
- No serious shooter would trade any of his buttons for a touch screen. The buttons are there so you can change things without taking your eye away from the viewfinder.
- Paying the battery/money/heat expense for Android just to fix a few menus?
- Another simple feature to build into an existing OS, if there were a demand for it. There's very little demand, so if you want to do that you buy an accessory. Or just build your own.
- Most DSLRs don't control slave flashes anyway. That's usually an external unit, as it should be. That way you're not beholden to the camera manufacturer's slave system.
A lot of photographers shoot tethered to a laptop for the big screen and essentially unlimited storage. It's not for anything that Android on the camera would do.
Ah, got it. Selling DSLRs to people who take pictures as if they were using their smartphone.
Yes, the menus aren't great. Having said that, I don't know many shooters who actually use the menu very often.
Yes, the software on many cameras isn't great, but the solution to that isn't making the thing a general purpose computer. Compared to the OS a camera needs to run Android is big, complicated and requires a lot of expensive hardware. You don't cram all that into a camera just to fix a few UI issues.
Why? I don't really understand why people want their cameras to be general purpose computers to start with. I guess the snapshot set like to be able to post things online right away, but a camera that tethers to your phone, as the summary suggests, seems a better solution for that. But why would I want my DSLR to run Android?
Such as? Apple doesn't keep around ancient APIs like Microsoft does, but they don't break them every couple of years the way some Linux/cross platform GUI systems do. The major API Apple is "infamous" for discontinuing is Carbon, which was released as a transition from OS9, with the clear provision that nobody should write anything new in it, more than a decade ago.
The incompatibilities he's talking about require the source code to be updated. That pisses off developers because it makes maintaining a package too much work. So then they go develop for something else, and the users follow.
I thought the quote in the summary "we broke people's code" gave that away.
Linux is a unix workalike. OS X IS UNIX (to head off the nitpickers, the latest versions aren't certified). So there's POSIX, most of the command line user environment, etc.
Or maybe they're getting a Mac because they like how it works and they need VMWare or Parallels because there are a couple of special purpose Windows programs they need for some backwards class.
Your bias is showing.