You missed the point - they're talking about stopping a high-speed chase before it ends with a school bus pushed off an overpass, not just shooting some guy who stole a loaf of bread from a supermarket.
You're right, just because I don't use it doesn't invalidate the functionality, but if no one uses it, it does. My original post asked how often anyone actually used the rear camera, because my assumption was that, like me, no one else would have anything more than the most occasional, trivial use for it. Apple could bundle a USB CD burner with it and list it as a "feature," and I'm sure some people would occasionally use it, but that doesn't really make it a better device.
No, I just use it to talk to people because I am talking to them, not showing them stupid crap around the room or work. Maybe it's a developed habit because turning my laptop around is such a difficult maneuver. . . wait, no it isn't. Must just be because I'm not showing them stupid crap.
I hate saying this, because it's so cruel, and ad hominem attacks aren't exactly the strongest ways to dispute something, but Focardi is old. It's certainly not out of the question that the Pauling Effect has come into play here. And just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that he or she is immune to greed. Focardi published his original nickel/hydrogen cold fusion paper in 1994, and several high profile physicists, as well as fellow University of Bologna collaborators, tried and failed to replicate his results. He barked up that tree a bit more, then retired, then came out of retirement to work on this. Maybe he finally got it to work reproducibly, but if so, he should have gotten others to verify something.
What energy breakthroughs have been rejected as "kooky?" The concept of biodiesel was accepted easily, as was the photoelectric effect, and nuclear power. Even newer breakthroughs, like Gray & Nocera and their water-splitting catalyst have been accepted easily. The reason everyone suspects this to be a hoax is not because it's in the field of energy production, but because it's in the field of cold fusion, which has never been demonstrated to function at all, just like perpetual motion. When history shows zero successes and hundreds of failures and hoaxes, it's not unreasonable to expect another hoax when the perpetrator's activities mirror those of previous hucksters.
I honestly would like for this to work, I'd like my children to be able to grow up in a world where energy concerns didn't taint their entire lives. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just smoke and mirrors to protect the money to be made.
Clearly you aren't an actual scientist, or you would know that peer-review is the first step in getting a paper published. Scientific journals aren't a "Letters to the Editor" section, where they publish anything that's mailed to them. Typically five to twenty reviewers established in the appropriate field are selected by the journal editor, and they read and review the paper for scientific rigor, raising issues and questions that the author needs to address. The author attempts to redress any perceived shortcomings, resubmits the paper, and the process starts all over.
As a second point, if you were an actual scientist, you would realize that open-access journals exist, offering a way to publish through the peer-review process, without supporting the "crook magazines." Open access journals are the future of scientific publishing, not 99 cent books on the Kindle.
Is he willing to announce who the purchaser is, yet? Or is it still "secret?" I wouldn't be completely convinced that this is a scam, albeit a Madoff-level implementation, if he'd let the public in on this, but everything I've read says that the demonstration was restricted to his associates and one AP person with whom he has a personal relationship. It just sounds to me like all of those fuel-saving gadgets, Bigfoot videos, and everything else of which P.T. Barnum would have been proud.
What was he researching? At least in chemistry, most reviewers will give a reasonable paper a "fix this and resubmit" review, whether it's addressing a point that was glossed over, or pointing out more experiments that need to be conducted to shore up an assertion that maybe a bit too much of a stretch. You might end up doing that two or three times, and sometimes it will get rejected anyway (especially if it turns out an unscrupulous competitor is one of the reviewers), but if you fix what the reviewers suggest, more often than not you get through.
Publishing peer reviewed papers doesn't put bread on the table. Rossi is an entrepreneur. Selling his technology to a world of willing buyers is the only form of review process that matters to him. The peer-reviewed scientists can write about it when they eventually figure it out.
Actually, it does put bread on the table. Publishing gets you grants, and almost all big grants (NSF, NIH, etc.) allow for a percentage to go straight to the PI as pay.
Those peer reviewers are all owned by big oil/big coal/big nuclear, who already know that the theory behind cold fusion is solid, just the correct implementation is unknown.
Right. Big X owns the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of peer reviewers just in America alone, including me, not to mention all the other thousands elsewhere around the globe. If you are a higher-degreed scientist, actually using your degree (as in, didn't get burnt out in grad school and just started sitting on your ass as management upon graduation), there's a better than even chance that you perform at least the occasional peer-review.
Just a good thing that this guy hasn't ended up like Thomas Gold, who correctly pointed out that we are not in danger of running out of oil, nor is it made out of fossilized dinosaurs, but a natural byproduct of chemical reactions in the Earth's core. They killed him.
Thomas Gold, the 84 year old astrophysicist who was suffering from heart disease? Shit, good thing Big X took him out while he was young, or they would have been really fucked.
Except that 1, Shechtman was already an established scientist, unlike Rossi; 2, Shechtman was proposing something totally new, not something that has been the focus of several hoaxes over the last few decades; and 3, it only took two years for Shechtman to get his controversial paper published. Many non-controversial papers take longer to get published, just from minor editing and additional research requirements from the peer reviewers. Hell, he won a prize from the APS five years after he first wrote the paper. Initial reaction was negative, but when others reproduce your results, it's hard to ignore them. This douchebag has done nothing of the sort.
It's great that Shechtman won the Nobel, especially after the father of crystallography came down on him so hard and so publicly, but it's not like he was Rosa Parks, overcoming a lifetime of oppression.
Mind you, hundreds of renowned physicists all over the world have reviewed the papers on this thing. . . they have acknowledged that the numbers and physics on the paper . ..is legit and a-ok.
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. Rossi's papers were rejected during peer review, so he started his own journal to publish them.
This will not work. There's absolutely no reason not to publish such stuff in respected journals -- if it really works, it will pass the muster. The guy is a scam artist with a long history, it's irresponsible to expect anything else from him without a lot of due diligence. Since he doesn't let anyone do their due diligence, I say it's still a scam.
He did let people do their due diligence (i.e. peer review), and his papers didn't pass muster. That's why he had to start his own journal, so he could get "published" anyway.
Nah, he'll get protection from all the redneck scrappers so they can sit at home and drink beer while making copper in their reactors instead of breaking into construction sites and foreclosed homes to tear out pipes and wiring.
The fact that you have to interface the device with iTunes instead of just an OS file manager, and can't play FLAC, Ogg Vorbis or WMA files. Not so much of a problem now, since all the music stores have died, but it was a problem when it launched and everyone besides Apple sold music as DRMed WMA files.
How much has your company expanded its product sales as it was expanding its robotic force, though? If production increased 20% while the staff budget only increased 10%, it's still a comparative gap increase.
Slashdot Mirror
Where does seeing the other person's reaction come into play? Again, just turn the tablet around to use the front camera - it's really not that hard.
You missed the point - they're talking about stopping a high-speed chase before it ends with a school bus pushed off an overpass, not just shooting some guy who stole a loaf of bread from a supermarket.
There is only one way to punish a cop in the US where the courts don't punish them. You have to kill them.
That's BS. They can lose vacation time!
You're right, just because I don't use it doesn't invalidate the functionality, but if no one uses it, it does. My original post asked how often anyone actually used the rear camera, because my assumption was that, like me, no one else would have anything more than the most occasional, trivial use for it. Apple could bundle a USB CD burner with it and list it as a "feature," and I'm sure some people would occasionally use it, but that doesn't really make it a better device.
With the MotoACTV: http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/18/motorola-announces-motoactv-the-ultimate-fitness-device/
Better hardware overall, better functionality, lower price.
Still more than I would pay, but I'm nerdy enough I would like one if I didn't have to pay for it.
How do you know she can't spell "either?" I don't think it's actually in that post anywhere. . .
No, I just use it to talk to people because I am talking to them, not showing them stupid crap around the room or work. Maybe it's a developed habit because turning my laptop around is such a difficult maneuver. . . wait, no it isn't. Must just be because I'm not showing them stupid crap.
The fuss is because it's a hundred dollar tablet that isn't four years old, not because it's actually anything special.
Or a smartphone.
How often do you actually need that function?
I hate saying this, because it's so cruel, and ad hominem attacks aren't exactly the strongest ways to dispute something, but Focardi is old. It's certainly not out of the question that the Pauling Effect has come into play here. And just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that he or she is immune to greed. Focardi published his original nickel/hydrogen cold fusion paper in 1994, and several high profile physicists, as well as fellow University of Bologna collaborators, tried and failed to replicate his results. He barked up that tree a bit more, then retired, then came out of retirement to work on this. Maybe he finally got it to work reproducibly, but if so, he should have gotten others to verify something.
What energy breakthroughs have been rejected as "kooky?" The concept of biodiesel was accepted easily, as was the photoelectric effect, and nuclear power. Even newer breakthroughs, like Gray & Nocera and their water-splitting catalyst have been accepted easily. The reason everyone suspects this to be a hoax is not because it's in the field of energy production, but because it's in the field of cold fusion, which has never been demonstrated to function at all, just like perpetual motion. When history shows zero successes and hundreds of failures and hoaxes, it's not unreasonable to expect another hoax when the perpetrator's activities mirror those of previous hucksters.
I honestly would like for this to work, I'd like my children to be able to grow up in a world where energy concerns didn't taint their entire lives. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just smoke and mirrors to protect the money to be made.
Clearly you aren't an actual scientist, or you would know that peer-review is the first step in getting a paper published. Scientific journals aren't a "Letters to the Editor" section, where they publish anything that's mailed to them. Typically five to twenty reviewers established in the appropriate field are selected by the journal editor, and they read and review the paper for scientific rigor, raising issues and questions that the author needs to address. The author attempts to redress any perceived shortcomings, resubmits the paper, and the process starts all over.
As a second point, if you were an actual scientist, you would realize that open-access journals exist, offering a way to publish through the peer-review process, without supporting the "crook magazines." Open access journals are the future of scientific publishing, not 99 cent books on the Kindle.
Is he willing to announce who the purchaser is, yet? Or is it still "secret?" I wouldn't be completely convinced that this is a scam, albeit a Madoff-level implementation, if he'd let the public in on this, but everything I've read says that the demonstration was restricted to his associates and one AP person with whom he has a personal relationship. It just sounds to me like all of those fuel-saving gadgets, Bigfoot videos, and everything else of which P.T. Barnum would have been proud.
What was he researching? At least in chemistry, most reviewers will give a reasonable paper a "fix this and resubmit" review, whether it's addressing a point that was glossed over, or pointing out more experiments that need to be conducted to shore up an assertion that maybe a bit too much of a stretch. You might end up doing that two or three times, and sometimes it will get rejected anyway (especially if it turns out an unscrupulous competitor is one of the reviewers), but if you fix what the reviewers suggest, more often than not you get through.
Publishing peer reviewed papers doesn't put bread on the table. Rossi is an entrepreneur. Selling his technology to a world of willing buyers is the only form of review process that matters to him. The peer-reviewed scientists can write about it when they eventually figure it out.
Actually, it does put bread on the table. Publishing gets you grants, and almost all big grants (NSF, NIH, etc.) allow for a percentage to go straight to the PI as pay.
Those peer reviewers are all owned by big oil/big coal/big nuclear, who already know that the theory behind cold fusion is solid, just the correct implementation is unknown.
Right. Big X owns the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of peer reviewers just in America alone, including me, not to mention all the other thousands elsewhere around the globe. If you are a higher-degreed scientist, actually using your degree (as in, didn't get burnt out in grad school and just started sitting on your ass as management upon graduation), there's a better than even chance that you perform at least the occasional peer-review.
Just a good thing that this guy hasn't ended up like Thomas Gold, who correctly pointed out that we are not in danger of running out of oil, nor is it made out of fossilized dinosaurs, but a natural byproduct of chemical reactions in the Earth's core. They killed him.
Thomas Gold, the 84 year old astrophysicist who was suffering from heart disease? Shit, good thing Big X took him out while he was young, or they would have been really fucked.
And it's not quite true that 'he would have published if it was real'.
If you have sufficiently ridiculous claims, journals may not accept your paper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Shechtman - as one example of work ridiculed at the time that went on to win a Nobel prize.
Except that 1, Shechtman was already an established scientist, unlike Rossi; 2, Shechtman was proposing something totally new, not something that has been the focus of several hoaxes over the last few decades; and 3, it only took two years for Shechtman to get his controversial paper published. Many non-controversial papers take longer to get published, just from minor editing and additional research requirements from the peer reviewers. Hell, he won a prize from the APS five years after he first wrote the paper. Initial reaction was negative, but when others reproduce your results, it's hard to ignore them. This douchebag has done nothing of the sort.
It's great that Shechtman won the Nobel, especially after the father of crystallography came down on him so hard and so publicly, but it's not like he was Rosa Parks, overcoming a lifetime of oppression.
Mind you, hundreds of renowned physicists all over the world have reviewed the papers on this thing. . . they have acknowledged that the numbers and physics on the paper . . .is legit and a-ok.
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. Rossi's papers were rejected during peer review, so he started his own journal to publish them.
This will not work. There's absolutely no reason not to publish such stuff in respected journals -- if it really works, it will pass the muster. The guy is a scam artist with a long history, it's irresponsible to expect anything else from him without a lot of due diligence. Since he doesn't let anyone do their due diligence, I say it's still a scam.
He did let people do their due diligence (i.e. peer review), and his papers didn't pass muster. That's why he had to start his own journal, so he could get "published" anyway.
Nah, he'll get protection from all the redneck scrappers so they can sit at home and drink beer while making copper in their reactors instead of breaking into construction sites and foreclosed homes to tear out pipes and wiring.
I guess I'd have to start paying attention to self-published papers after they were rejected by peer review.
The fact that you have to interface the device with iTunes instead of just an OS file manager, and can't play FLAC, Ogg Vorbis or WMA files. Not so much of a problem now, since all the music stores have died, but it was a problem when it launched and everyone besides Apple sold music as DRMed WMA files.
At least we didn't read about helping your uncle jack off a horse. Capitalization matters, too!
How much has your company expanded its product sales as it was expanding its robotic force, though? If production increased 20% while the staff budget only increased 10%, it's still a comparative gap increase.
I don't know anything about System76, but I am concerned that I've now seen three posts recommending them, all by ACs. Makes me a bit nervous.