Give it up. The average person never did "content creation." A hundred years ago people read newspapers, they didn't write them. Today people read web pages.
I don't think it's quite that simple. Their technique uses a type of interferometry to reconstruct the image - the imaging itself is done in the Fourier domain, which is definitely not the case for a phase contrast microscope. They also don't need lenses, also not the case in phase contrast microscopy.
No, it's a diffraction imaging technique. A CT scan reconstructs internal structure based on rotating a source around an entire sample. This constructs a regular image, but without the need for a lens.
Yes, there is. You can measure the phase directly if the frequency is low enough. But the usual way, certainly with higher frequencies, is interference. Which is exactly what he describes - calculating the phase of the waves from their intensity alone.
From the article it sounds like they arrange for multiple diffraction images to interfere with each other.
This is transmission electron microscopy (not SEM), where electrons are shot through the sample. It's kind of like a standard light microscope where the light goes through the sample and you see the shadow.
What they're doing is reconstructing an image from diffraction patterns instead of focusing it with a lens. I think it's vaguely similar to interferometry. They can apparently also do it with light microscopes, which has certain advantages. Unfortunately the article mixes up the electron and light microscopy - you don't do TEM on living cells, for example, no matter how fancy an imaging system you have.
Glucose is good for you, in appropriate amounts. Your brain, and the rest of your body, like to use it for energy. The problem comes in when you get too much. If ALL you were going to eat was glucose, you'd need quite a bit. You don't need as much because, as you say, you get a lot from other sources.
Carbs aren't bad, excessive carbs are bad. The problem with Atkins et. al. is that they don't advise moderation, they advise extremism. Atkins called for NO fruit. NO or very few vegetables. But go ahead and eat as much fat and protein as you can. Too much fat IS bad for you, just as surely as too much sugar is.
Atkins was right that the vilification of fat was bad - you need fat. But he was wrong in vilifying carbs. You need them too. There is no magic bullet.
The Tevatron was powerful enough, it's just that if the mass is near the top end of your accessible energies you need a lot more time to find something than if the mass is in the middle. The Tevatron may have been able to find some indications of the Higgs (especially when they knew where to look) but it might have taken a long time for them to amass enough events to make a definite discovery.
Not even close. Basic scientific research, which is what we're running out of now, can't justify it's budget based purely on short term profit.
People estimate that 80% of the west's economy is based on quantum mechanics, which was developed from about 1900-1930, with the not-so-basic engineering done mostly in the 50s and 60s. Since then we've been shortsightedly reaping the rewards, and we're starting to run out now.
Actually, "The God Particle" is a name coined by a Nobel prize winning physicist. Sort of. He wanted to call it the Goddamn Particle but his publisher wouldn't let him.
It's not exactly unjustified either. A sea of Higg's Bosons are theorized to pervade the entire universe and the interact with every particle of matter. That's not entirely dissimilar to the Christian description of god being a force or entity that is everywhere at once. Various Christian theologians have also posited that god's ongoing influence is required to keep the planets in their orbits, guide thrown stones, etc. all of which are things the Higgs is supposed to do.
The Atkins diet is a low calorie diet. Even if it did have some effect on metabolism, it's still just increasing the calories out side of the equation.
"If you damage your digestive tract by eating foods with harmful substances you will be unable to efficiently convert food into energy and have a reusultant weight gain."
I'm not sure how you put that together. Your digestive tract absorbs nutrients, including macronutrients that provide energy. If it's damaged you might lose weight from poor absorption efficiency, but you'll still be subject to calories in vs. calories out, either because you're getting less in, or because you're excreting more, depending on whether you consider the gut to be "in" or not.
You could potentially have some metabolic problem involving the conversion of fat or glycogen to glucose. That might make it difficult to lose weight but you would still be subject to calories in vs. calories out: you might not be able to raise your calories out past a certain level and, if starved you might die. Calories in vs. calories out is basically a statement of the conservation of energy, so it always applies.
Most people can't make permanent changes to their diet alone. Exercise is an appetite suppressant so it's easier to change your diet if you also get more exercise. Not that a gym is the best solution - the big blue room has all sorts of collateral benefits.
Also, I don't understand your parenthetical statement. I'm under the impression that fad diets are the answer to everything weight related in the US and actually getting some exercise and eating reasonably is avoided at all costs.
It's a gimmick. Software that controls medical devices has to be locked down and validated. So maybe it's open source in that you can read the source, and you could possibly even install your own modifications on a device if you could buy or build one, but you couldn't do surgery with it except, maybe, under very carefully controlled (and ethics board approved) research conditions.
I'm pretty sure if they catch you doing that you'll get more than a punch in the face. Personally I'd be quite happy to hold you until the cops get there to administer your $16,000 fine.
But yes, inconsiderate people frequently value their own convenience over everything else. Loud talkers on cell phones, people with jammers who block them. Same bird, different feathers.
My very first message suggested doing something about a loud and annoying passenger, but NOT jamming EVERYONE's cell phone (including bystanders outside). The jammer solution is like throwing everyone off a bus because one person is behaving badly, and not telling anyone why. It punishes everyone indiscriminately and it doesn't apply any pressure on the actual offender to change his or her ways.
Then move. People rarely talk loudly on their phones on busses where I live, and never get assaulted. If you're too much of a coward to ask someone to be quieter then sit down and suffer, go somewhere else, go to the gym and bulk up or lobby for sane gun control laws. Interfering with everyone else is it a solution.
We're not talking about coast to coast. We're talking about on your property vs off it, a very short distance, and the jamming has to go from effective to nil in that short distance.
My third party observation is that most people, driving or not, who have a call dropped get angry and spend a considerable amount of time trying to re-establish it, usually getting more agitated (and more distracted) the longer it takes.
Slashdot Mirror
Give it up. The average person never did "content creation." A hundred years ago people read newspapers, they didn't write them. Today people read web pages.
Put them on the shelf side by side?
You find the price interesting? The same price as all the other iPads have been? Really?
A fantastic screen. The screen in the iPhone 4 and 4S is beautiful.
I don't think it's quite that simple. Their technique uses a type of interferometry to reconstruct the image - the imaging itself is done in the Fourier domain, which is definitely not the case for a phase contrast microscope. They also don't need lenses, also not the case in phase contrast microscopy.
No, it's a diffraction imaging technique. A CT scan reconstructs internal structure based on rotating a source around an entire sample. This constructs a regular image, but without the need for a lens.
nMR is already an interferometric process. I'm not sure how you'd use this in a CT scanner, or why.
Yes, there is. You can measure the phase directly if the frequency is low enough. But the usual way, certainly with higher frequencies, is interference. Which is exactly what he describes - calculating the phase of the waves from their intensity alone.
From the article it sounds like they arrange for multiple diffraction images to interfere with each other.
This is transmission electron microscopy (not SEM), where electrons are shot through the sample. It's kind of like a standard light microscope where the light goes through the sample and you see the shadow.
What they're doing is reconstructing an image from diffraction patterns instead of focusing it with a lens. I think it's vaguely similar to interferometry. They can apparently also do it with light microscopes, which has certain advantages. Unfortunately the article mixes up the electron and light microscopy - you don't do TEM on living cells, for example, no matter how fancy an imaging system you have.
Glucose is good for you, in appropriate amounts. Your brain, and the rest of your body, like to use it for energy. The problem comes in when you get too much. If ALL you were going to eat was glucose, you'd need quite a bit. You don't need as much because, as you say, you get a lot from other sources.
Carbs aren't bad, excessive carbs are bad. The problem with Atkins et. al. is that they don't advise moderation, they advise extremism. Atkins called for NO fruit. NO or very few vegetables. But go ahead and eat as much fat and protein as you can. Too much fat IS bad for you, just as surely as too much sugar is.
Atkins was right that the vilification of fat was bad - you need fat. But he was wrong in vilifying carbs. You need them too. There is no magic bullet.
The proper term is grad student, elitist.
The Tevatron was powerful enough, it's just that if the mass is near the top end of your accessible energies you need a lot more time to find something than if the mass is in the middle. The Tevatron may have been able to find some indications of the Higgs (especially when they knew where to look) but it might have taken a long time for them to amass enough events to make a definite discovery.
Not even close. Basic scientific research, which is what we're running out of now, can't justify it's budget based purely on short term profit.
People estimate that 80% of the west's economy is based on quantum mechanics, which was developed from about 1900-1930, with the not-so-basic engineering done mostly in the 50s and 60s. Since then we've been shortsightedly reaping the rewards, and we're starting to run out now.
Actually, "The God Particle" is a name coined by a Nobel prize winning physicist. Sort of. He wanted to call it the Goddamn Particle but his publisher wouldn't let him.
It's not exactly unjustified either. A sea of Higg's Bosons are theorized to pervade the entire universe and the interact with every particle of matter. That's not entirely dissimilar to the Christian description of god being a force or entity that is everywhere at once. Various Christian theologians have also posited that god's ongoing influence is required to keep the planets in their orbits, guide thrown stones, etc. all of which are things the Higgs is supposed to do.
Or you could read the many articles by people with actual relevant qualifications that are critical of Taubes and Atkins.
Or just be suspicious of any diet that says fruit is bad and vegetables are negotiable.
The Atkins diet is a low calorie diet. Even if it did have some effect on metabolism, it's still just increasing the calories out side of the equation.
"If you damage your digestive tract by eating foods with harmful substances you will be unable to efficiently convert food into energy and have a reusultant weight gain."
I'm not sure how you put that together. Your digestive tract absorbs nutrients, including macronutrients that provide energy. If it's damaged you might lose weight from poor absorption efficiency, but you'll still be subject to calories in vs. calories out, either because you're getting less in, or because you're excreting more, depending on whether you consider the gut to be "in" or not.
You could potentially have some metabolic problem involving the conversion of fat or glycogen to glucose. That might make it difficult to lose weight but you would still be subject to calories in vs. calories out: you might not be able to raise your calories out past a certain level and, if starved you might die. Calories in vs. calories out is basically a statement of the conservation of energy, so it always applies.
Most people can't make permanent changes to their diet alone. Exercise is an appetite suppressant so it's easier to change your diet if you also get more exercise. Not that a gym is the best solution - the big blue room has all sorts of collateral benefits.
Also, I don't understand your parenthetical statement. I'm under the impression that fad diets are the answer to everything weight related in the US and actually getting some exercise and eating reasonably is avoided at all costs.
It's a gimmick. Software that controls medical devices has to be locked down and validated. So maybe it's open source in that you can read the source, and you could possibly even install your own modifications on a device if you could buy or build one, but you couldn't do surgery with it except, maybe, under very carefully controlled (and ethics board approved) research conditions.
Plus it's easier to keep that "we've never lost a war!" (except for 1812) thing intact if all you do is engage in police actions.
I'm pretty sure if they catch you doing that you'll get more than a punch in the face. Personally I'd be quite happy to hold you until the cops get there to administer your $16,000 fine.
But yes, inconsiderate people frequently value their own convenience over everything else. Loud talkers on cell phones, people with jammers who block them. Same bird, different feathers.
My very first message suggested doing something about a loud and annoying passenger, but NOT jamming EVERYONE's cell phone (including bystanders outside). The jammer solution is like throwing everyone off a bus because one person is behaving badly, and not telling anyone why. It punishes everyone indiscriminately and it doesn't apply any pressure on the actual offender to change his or her ways.
Then move. People rarely talk loudly on their phones on busses where I live, and never get assaulted. If you're too much of a coward to ask someone to be quieter then sit down and suffer, go somewhere else, go to the gym and bulk up or lobby for sane gun control laws. Interfering with everyone else is it a solution.
We're not talking about coast to coast. We're talking about on your property vs off it, a very short distance, and the jamming has to go from effective to nil in that short distance.
My third party observation is that most people, driving or not, who have a call dropped get angry and spend a considerable amount of time trying to re-establish it, usually getting more agitated (and more distracted) the longer it takes.