The car (supposedly a "glorified golf cart") costs $10,000 (you can convert all the figures into rupees or euros or swiss francs if you want). If the average person makes $1500 / yr, they're probably not going to be able to afford that car, never mind a conventional one. In the west if you're in the "middle class" you usually make rather more than the price of a cheap car per year.
Nope. It's IR and down, and it sounds like it probably only works in a fairly narrow frequency band. It also seems like it's probably going to stay that way, since the feature size determines the frequency it's tuned for. Visible light may require impractically small features.
You could probably build an IR telescope using it, but it would still be a tube, it's just the lens would be very thin (which is likely a problem, rather than an advantage for a large aperture - how do you keep it from flexing? Plus your telescope would probably only work properly in a narrow frequency band (and you'd have to filter out other frequencies).
Sorry, when I assess a form of government's goodness, I'm not judging by how long it lasted. If you want to go live under a non-democratic system, there are still quite a few to choose from. Have fun.
We're talking about regulating industries so if you take the power away from the government (which IS the people) then you give it to the corporations. I'd much rather an entity that represents me, in a collective sense, be in charge than a corporation.
No, you don't, although usually you're not worth suing unless you do make money. People who file patent infringement lawsuits care very, very much about how much money you make. Lawyers can calculate all the damages they want, and courts can award them, but somebody still has to collect, and if you don't have any money there's nothing to collect.
You can do things like distribute an implementation of a patented algorithm with the warning that it's patented and should be used in an infringing manner (you said this yourself!). VTK for example, has some patented components that you're free to use, with the warning that they are patented. You can download them, play with them, use them for research, do all kinds of things with them. You couldn't do that under your supposedly not-strange software writer gets sued system.
Emotion. If you're worried your real case won't impress an actual legal expert, you go with a bunch of amateurs that you can impress with emotional arguments and antics. Same thing jury trials have always been for.
No, that's one of the GOOD things about patents. I can do lots of things with something that's patented. So long as I don't make money (and usually lots of money) using it, I'm probably okay. We do NOT need patents, software or otherwise, that make it illegal to use the patented technique at all.
I watched that whole irritating video, and I didn't see any pinch to zoom. The article suggests that it was in a particular fractal app... so the video attached to the story is entirely gratuitous?
As with other geo-engineering proposals, it might be better to do nothing. Or address the problem, instead of treating the symptoms. If you're expending a giant effort to take some CO2 out of the atmosphere temporarily, you might as well put that effort into something else. Installing that wind farm in Cape Cod, for example, and not running a bazillion earthmovers in Antarctica.
Has your phone ever crashed and required a reboot? That's going to be a big oopsie for a satellite. Phones certainly haven't been tested in the conditions faced by a satellite. RF testing? For the cell phone component that's going to be completely useless (and hopefully you can turn off completely to save power)?
Phones are engineered to work in a fairly coddled environment, for a fairly short period, with a (catastrophic) failure rate dictated by how expensive it is to replace them under warranty and a soft failure rate determined by the tolerance for irritation your users have.
If you're launching expensive satellites then a phone is completely unacceptable because it's nowhere near reliable enough. If you're launching cheap microsats then you're still going to be better off with something designed for hardware interfacing, which is going to end up cheaper than a cell phone and MUCH easier to customize and interface. Digital design isn't THAT hard.
Members of an industry have both the experience and the conflict of interest....
That is not to say that members of an industry shouldn't be involved in drafting regulations over that industry, but there needs to be strong representation of other interests as well. Really, the people need to start sticking up for themselves. Banking regulations not adequate? Elect someone who will push for good regulations instead of rubber stamping whatever the industry says is necessary.
"That's why I'd rather just take power away from government altogether"
Mon/olig/etc-archies of various kinds have been tried. Sometimes they work well, for a time. Democracy seems to do better on average, over the long run.
Hm... the abstract appears to convert 1 B tonnes (1 billion, I assume) into 1012 kg. It also omits a lot of words and is generally difficult to read because of it. They appear to use the coldest ever recorded temperature as their working temperature. They also don't talk about how they're going to keep all that CO2 frozen, or how much energy that's going to cost. Or what you do with the plant after five years when it's surrounded by CO2 dumps.
The attitude in the US that the government is some kind of antagonistic entity really is odd. People, including in these comments, refer to the government as "a monopoly" as if it were another corporation.
You're a democracy. You, the people, elect the government. They're YOUR chosen representatives.
I know, I'll control it. Only that wouldn't be fair... how about we all do? We could vote for what we want to happen. Except that would be a little unwieldily. How about we vote for some people who represent our views and they go make decisions. And in case they fail to represent our views, they have to be reelected every so often?
The under God part was added in the 50s, and the circumstances under which it was added make it pretty clear which god it is. Many of the men who signed the US Declaration of Independence would have been horrified. One of the fairly novel ideas was to found a nation where churches wouldn't mess around with affairs of state and cause all the problems they had in Europe.
Still seems like a gimmick. You can drop by an off the shelf electronics supplier and get a processor, gyro and accelerometer for a fraction of the cost of a cell phone. Then put something on it smaller and more reliable than Android.
Sure, but you have to keep it on the right side of the line. Samsung apparently stepped over and got burned. Funny you should mention fashion though... a lot of the design patent laws around the world were either motivated by, or are often used in, the fashion industry. Also, I seem to remember a dispute over Dodge's pickup truck design fifteen years ago or so, when they went from boxy flat front ends to the rounded ones with headlights sticking out the side and everybody else copied them.
Possibly, but at least I can spell. Seriously, do you open all your conversations like that?
"Injectng mercury is a far cry from biological digestion, and the results are not even close chemically, or the causality that results from the delivery systems to the neurological systems vs DNA damage."
Injection and digestion are different, and the effects are potentially different. However, if you actually bother to look it up, you'll find that ingested methylmercury is absorbed readily and completely by the gastrointestinal tract, so there's not really that much difference between drinking methylmercury and shooting it up. And no chemical difference. Now, methyl mercury, which is most of what you get from water and fish, is not the same thing as thimerosal, which is the preservative used in some vaccines. but the OP was afraid of "mercury," not any particular kind of mercury.
I can't address the second part of your run on sentence because it doesn't make sense.
Totally different issues and either one could be the cause for the rise in autism. (Vaccines vs Increase in seafood products/by products in food manufacturing.)
No, actually. Thimerosal is almost certainly (as very, very, very, very likely) not in any way linked to autism. There have been a LOT of studies on that, due to the fraudulent and unethical work of Dr. Wakefield and the ensuing hooplah. As someone else pointed out, thimerosal was even removed from most vaccines some time ago, and that had no effect whatsoever on autism rates.
I'm not aware of any specific research looking at methylmercury exposure (from fish) and autism. Methylmercury poisoning can produce lowered IQ and attention problems. I don't know if it's ever been linked to more autism-like symptoms. However, a quick glance at some numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism) doesn't show any obvious trend to increased autism rates in fish eating countries, not even in Japan (a high fish consuming nation) where methylmercury pollution has been a huge problem.
-Hack
Oh, do you write a medical column in a newspaper or magazine?
Um, yes. Did you even read my post? I mean, all the way to the end? Here's the second half:
Neither inclination seems to have much to do with how good either sex is at science and engineering in general, nor even how good a particular member of one sex might be at a particular job.
Yes... it seems that the religion has already been pushed. Even the rewrite is mostly complete (what do you mean the founding fathers weren't devout Christians, and the US wasn't founded on Christian principles!?).
So I guess the GP is correct after all, the mainstream policy is not to push religion (anymore). Now it's mostly bickering about the details of which particular sects are okay, and which particular dogmas should be adopted. "Kennedy is a Catholic... that's going to hurt him." "Romney is a Mormon? Well, maybe he can win despite that." "Too bad we can't have Santorum, he doesn't believe in separation of church and state!"
Yes, your post does seem to be a good example of dogmatic stereotyping.
MY post, on the other hand, is a (rough) summary of scientifically observed behavioural sexual dimorphism in primates (including humans). You can look it up for yourself if you want. Google Scholar is your friend. Here's a good one to start with though: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643016/.
You really should be careful about constructing sexual stereotypes from things like differences in general natural preferences, aptitudes and behaviours though. It's dangerous and probably at least partially responsible for some of society's most unjust problems.
Slashdot Mirror
The car (supposedly a "glorified golf cart") costs $10,000 (you can convert all the figures into rupees or euros or swiss francs if you want). If the average person makes $1500 / yr, they're probably not going to be able to afford that car, never mind a conventional one. In the west if you're in the "middle class" you usually make rather more than the price of a cheap car per year.
Nope. It's IR and down, and it sounds like it probably only works in a fairly narrow frequency band. It also seems like it's probably going to stay that way, since the feature size determines the frequency it's tuned for. Visible light may require impractically small features.
You could probably build an IR telescope using it, but it would still be a tube, it's just the lens would be very thin (which is likely a problem, rather than an advantage for a large aperture - how do you keep it from flexing? Plus your telescope would probably only work properly in a narrow frequency band (and you'd have to filter out other frequencies).
Sorry, when I assess a form of government's goodness, I'm not judging by how long it lasted. If you want to go live under a non-democratic system, there are still quite a few to choose from. Have fun.
We're talking about regulating industries so if you take the power away from the government (which IS the people) then you give it to the corporations. I'd much rather an entity that represents me, in a collective sense, be in charge than a corporation.
No, you don't, although usually you're not worth suing unless you do make money. People who file patent infringement lawsuits care very, very much about how much money you make. Lawyers can calculate all the damages they want, and courts can award them, but somebody still has to collect, and if you don't have any money there's nothing to collect.
You can do things like distribute an implementation of a patented algorithm with the warning that it's patented and should be used in an infringing manner (you said this yourself!). VTK for example, has some patented components that you're free to use, with the warning that they are patented. You can download them, play with them, use them for research, do all kinds of things with them. You couldn't do that under your supposedly not-strange software writer gets sued system.
Emotion. If you're worried your real case won't impress an actual legal expert, you go with a bunch of amateurs that you can impress with emotional arguments and antics. Same thing jury trials have always been for.
No, that's one of the GOOD things about patents. I can do lots of things with something that's patented. So long as I don't make money (and usually lots of money) using it, I'm probably okay. We do NOT need patents, software or otherwise, that make it illegal to use the patented technique at all.
I watched that whole irritating video, and I didn't see any pinch to zoom. The article suggests that it was in a particular fractal app... so the video attached to the story is entirely gratuitous?
As with other geo-engineering proposals, it might be better to do nothing. Or address the problem, instead of treating the symptoms. If you're expending a giant effort to take some CO2 out of the atmosphere temporarily, you might as well put that effort into something else. Installing that wind farm in Cape Cod, for example, and not running a bazillion earthmovers in Antarctica.
PS: I read the article. I'm disagreeing with it.
Gyroscope APIs? If you can't figure out the datasheet for a a solid state gyro you shouldn't be designing satellites.
Has your phone ever crashed and required a reboot? That's going to be a big oopsie for a satellite. Phones certainly haven't been tested in the conditions faced by a satellite. RF testing? For the cell phone component that's going to be completely useless (and hopefully you can turn off completely to save power)?
Phones are engineered to work in a fairly coddled environment, for a fairly short period, with a (catastrophic) failure rate dictated by how expensive it is to replace them under warranty and a soft failure rate determined by the tolerance for irritation your users have.
If you're launching expensive satellites then a phone is completely unacceptable because it's nowhere near reliable enough. If you're launching cheap microsats then you're still going to be better off with something designed for hardware interfacing, which is going to end up cheaper than a cell phone and MUCH easier to customize and interface. Digital design isn't THAT hard.
Members of an industry have both the experience and the conflict of interest....
That is not to say that members of an industry shouldn't be involved in drafting regulations over that industry, but there needs to be strong representation of other interests as well. Really, the people need to start sticking up for themselves. Banking regulations not adequate? Elect someone who will push for good regulations instead of rubber stamping whatever the industry says is necessary.
"That's why I'd rather just take power away from government altogether"
Mon/olig/etc-archies of various kinds have been tried. Sometimes they work well, for a time. Democracy seems to do better on average, over the long run.
Hm... the abstract appears to convert 1 B tonnes (1 billion, I assume) into 1012 kg. It also omits a lot of words and is generally difficult to read because of it. They appear to use the coldest ever recorded temperature as their working temperature. They also don't talk about how they're going to keep all that CO2 frozen, or how much energy that's going to cost. Or what you do with the plant after five years when it's surrounded by CO2 dumps.
The attitude in the US that the government is some kind of antagonistic entity really is odd. People, including in these comments, refer to the government as "a monopoly" as if it were another corporation.
You're a democracy. You, the people, elect the government. They're YOUR chosen representatives.
I know, I'll control it. Only that wouldn't be fair... how about we all do? We could vote for what we want to happen. Except that would be a little unwieldily. How about we vote for some people who represent our views and they go make decisions. And in case they fail to represent our views, they have to be reelected every so often?
"Clearly, if the cure isn't working,then we need more of it."
The regulation might work better if you didn't have the industry being regulated write the regulations.
The under God part was added in the 50s, and the circumstances under which it was added make it pretty clear which god it is. Many of the men who signed the US Declaration of Independence would have been horrified. One of the fairly novel ideas was to found a nation where churches wouldn't mess around with affairs of state and cause all the problems they had in Europe.
Still seems like a gimmick. You can drop by an off the shelf electronics supplier and get a processor, gyro and accelerometer for a fraction of the cost of a cell phone. Then put something on it smaller and more reliable than Android.
Probably because they make so much money being Apple's supplier.
Most people go the other way. A ship sitting on the international date line in the north Pacific?
Sure, but you have to keep it on the right side of the line. Samsung apparently stepped over and got burned. Funny you should mention fashion though... a lot of the design patent laws around the world were either motivated by, or are often used in, the fashion industry. Also, I seem to remember a dispute over Dodge's pickup truck design fifteen years ago or so, when they went from boxy flat front ends to the rounded ones with headlights sticking out the side and everybody else copied them.
I'm pretty sure Apple has their lawyers on salary.
"Your an idiot."
Possibly, but at least I can spell. Seriously, do you open all your conversations like that?
"Injectng mercury is a far cry from biological digestion, and the results are not even close chemically, or the causality that results from the delivery systems to the neurological systems vs DNA damage."
Injection and digestion are different, and the effects are potentially different. However, if you actually bother to look it up, you'll find that ingested methylmercury is absorbed readily and completely by the gastrointestinal tract, so there's not really that much difference between drinking methylmercury and shooting it up. And no chemical difference. Now, methyl mercury, which is most of what you get from water and fish, is not the same thing as thimerosal, which is the preservative used in some vaccines. but the OP was afraid of "mercury," not any particular kind of mercury.
I can't address the second part of your run on sentence because it doesn't make sense.
No, actually. Thimerosal is almost certainly (as very, very, very, very likely) not in any way linked to autism. There have been a LOT of studies on that, due to the fraudulent and unethical work of Dr. Wakefield and the ensuing hooplah. As someone else pointed out, thimerosal was even removed from most vaccines some time ago, and that had no effect whatsoever on autism rates.
I'm not aware of any specific research looking at methylmercury exposure (from fish) and autism. Methylmercury poisoning can produce lowered IQ and attention problems. I don't know if it's ever been linked to more autism-like symptoms. However, a quick glance at some numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism) doesn't show any obvious trend to increased autism rates in fish eating countries, not even in Japan (a high fish consuming nation) where methylmercury pollution has been a huge problem.
Oh, do you write a medical column in a newspaper or magazine?
"i.e. there's wiring but it's not all wiring."
Um, yes. Did you even read my post? I mean, all the way to the end? Here's the second half:
Note, "inclination".
Yes... it seems that the religion has already been pushed. Even the rewrite is mostly complete (what do you mean the founding fathers weren't devout Christians, and the US wasn't founded on Christian principles!?).
So I guess the GP is correct after all, the mainstream policy is not to push religion (anymore). Now it's mostly bickering about the details of which particular sects are okay, and which particular dogmas should be adopted. "Kennedy is a Catholic... that's going to hurt him." "Romney is a Mormon? Well, maybe he can win despite that." "Too bad we can't have Santorum, he doesn't believe in separation of church and state!"
Yes, your post does seem to be a good example of dogmatic stereotyping.
MY post, on the other hand, is a (rough) summary of scientifically observed behavioural sexual dimorphism in primates (including humans). You can look it up for yourself if you want. Google Scholar is your friend. Here's a good one to start with though: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643016/.
You really should be careful about constructing sexual stereotypes from things like differences in general natural preferences, aptitudes and behaviours though. It's dangerous and probably at least partially responsible for some of society's most unjust problems.