And Blink is based on Webkit, which is based on khtml. MS bought Spyglass Mosaic in 1995, twenty years ago. It had been in development longer by Microsoft by a factor of ten. It isn't Spyglass's baby anymore.
Edge isn't practically bad on standards. We aren't in the early 90s anymore. I haven't encountered many differences between Edge and Chrome or Firefox. If anything, I've run into trouble because Safari won't implement certain web standards.
Leaving out Boeing would be budget suicide for NASA.
No one should be left out because there should be no contract. Instead, NASA should be fostering a spot market for launches. They should have a separate bid for each launch: "We want X satellite in Y orbit, and insured for Z dollars." Then give the launch to the lowest bidder. That way each company can work continuously to cut costs and improve services, knowing that if they leapfrog the competition, they can win the next launch, instead of being locked out for years.
That is not feesable. It take years to be trained to fly in a spaceship - whether the lifting body like the Shuttle or Dream Chaser, or a capsule such as Soyuz, CST-100, or Dragon V2. You have to build not only the rocket, but a tower to carry the crew to the top of the rocket along with an arm to get the astronauts into the vehicle (which is not compatible/spacecraft). Escape systems need to be installed. It's very expensive, and it would never be built without assurance that the demand is there. At this time, there is no market for launches except from NASA or ESA. Cosmonauts would ride Russian spacecraft, Indians and Chinese are developing their own systems, etc. The public demand is too little at this time. Without a long-term contract, NASA is not enough for your proposal.
Indeed! Russia also requires all telcoms and ISPs, at their expense, to install monitoring equipment of the internet and telephones, This project is called SORM (wikipedia entry for SORM). The system was put into place around 1996-2000, but it has been used as recently as the Winter Olympics (source). It is explicitly a mass-surveillance system, so either Putin is lying or he is bending the truth: Russia doesn't pay for it... but by law the telcoms have to pay it. They don't do illegal wiretapping because it is explicitly legal. And you're right, they might not have the ability to store all that data for long periods of time, but you can be sure they are targeting people. And you can be sure they are targeting foreign governments too (of course). Heck, there were several diplomatic leaks at the beginning of the Crimean crises in order to strain US-EU ties. You can be sure that's due to Russia's intelligence services.
Am I the only one that read the statement? It seems to me that they are collecting information. In fact McDonald's doesn't deny they attacked him, they only state that their employees denied it. It's an important distinction. Their employees are quite naturally saying, "We're innocent!" while Mann's saying "They're guilty." Mann provided proof that one of their statements - namely that they didn't damage any of his property - is incorrect. But it doesn't seem McDonalds, as a whole, is calling Mann a liar. Here's the statement:
We share the concern regarding Dr. Mann’s account of his July 1 visit to a McDonald’s in Paris. McDonald’s France was made aware of Dr. Mann’s complaints on July 16, and immediately launched a thorough investigation. The McDonald’s France team has contacted Dr. Mann and is awaiting further information from him.
In addition, several staff members involved have been interviewed individually, and all independently and consistently expressed that their interaction with Dr. Mann was polite and did not involve a physical altercation. Our crew members and restaurant security staff have informed us that they did not damage any of Mr. Mann’s personal possessions.
While we continue to learn more about the situation, we are hearing from customers who have questions about what happened. We urge everyone not to speculate or jump to conclusions before all the facts are known. Our goal is to provide a welcoming environment and stellar service to McDonald’s customers around the world.
Q: Do you like movies with gladiators?
A: My favorite type is comedy. I like the "Naked Gun" series best. Heck, any movie with Leslie Nielsen it is tops in my book!
Interesting that your quotes comes from "Airplane!", a movie starring Leslie Nielsen.
Sorry for all the responses. I asked Professor Strassler on his website. He replied that it's actually a mystery where the Higgs gets it's mass! It's a very good question. All the other standard model particles, except the neutrino, get their masses via interacting with the Higgs field. We don't really understand neutrinos very well, though.
Whoops. Allow me to correct my own post. Not all of the Higgs particle's mass is from the Higgs Field:
In particular, as you can see in Figs. 3 and 7, the Higgs particle itself does not get all of its mass from the non-zero Higgs field — and the strength of its interaction with itself is not directly related to its mass. [There is a correlation, but not proportionality.] This is not unusual.
I wonder how it gets the rest of its mass? That's a good question.
They get their masses from the Higgs Field. The W Boson is like a ripple in the W-Field. An electron is like a ripple in the electron-field (not the electrical field). Et cetera. So a Higgs Boson is like a ripple in the Higgs Field. But it still gets is mass by interacting with that field, like most other elementary particles with mass. Here's a good article that explains that:
If the Higgs field were zero.
The RIAA and Co. have never sued anyone for using their own music digitally. They have sued when a third party is involved. The issue isn't that you are able to stream your music to you from your own system, or even from a web server somewhere else that you operate. The problem is that you are uploading your songs to Google or Amazon, which may very well be copyright infringement.
The DVD-CCA (an organization run by the motion picture studios) sued Kaleidescape for making a personal server where you could upload your DVDs and then play them anywhere in your house. Kaleidescape won their suit, fortunately. Of course the DVD-CCA isn't the RIAA; however, I feel they are cut from the same cloth.
I concur. The export restrictions are frankly ridiculous in this case. If they wanted to, the Iranian government could just send someone to US to download Google's software for free. If Iran can import centrifuges to purify Uranium, they can surely use proxies to download the software directly too (spoofing their country of origin). It's probably a face-saving gesture for he more "senile" members of congress.
Indeed, Google says they worked with US government officials before releasing the software with these restrictions according to TFA. They believe that releasing the software to Iranians will help promote the flow of information and help them exercise more freedom of speech and assembly, as shown in during protests of the 2009 election in Iran. Someone in the US government probably thinks so too.
So, were they mislead, or is this more of a type of "buyers remorse"? There are plenty of places where the local population is uneducated and unlikely to fully understand genetic testing, should we stop studying them, and in the process deny them the good (potential treatments for disease that they suffer from) to protect them from "the bad" (the possibility that their world-view will be challenged, or that the data will be applied to larger studies)?
Also, one of the big issues here seems to be that the findings contradict their folklore:
Another article, suggesting that the tribe’s ancestors had crossed the frozen Bering Sea to arrive in North America, flew in the face of the tribe’s traditional stories that it had originated in the canyon and was assigned to be its guardian.
Listening to the investigators, Ms. Tilousi felt a surge of anger, she recalled. But in Supai, the initial reaction was more of hurt. Though some Havasupai knew already that their ancestors most likely came from Asia, “when people tell us, ‘No, this is not where you are from,’ and your own blood says so — it is confusing to us,” Rex Tilousi said. “It hurts the elders who have been telling these stories to our grandchildren.”
So science showed that their fable about springing from the ground in this canyon was, at best, unlikely. So what. We don't accept that the Earth is the center of the universe, that sex with virgins cures disease, that human sacrifice improves crop yield, or that it's turtles all the way down, why should we care about this story either. I'm not inclined to "turn off" science just because results show that a stone-age story is just a story.
I agree with your second part. Challenging anyone's worldview is always a good thing. Whether they are Christians, Havasupai, or even athiests, challenging people with evidence contradicting their ignorance is a good thing! It keeps society from stagnating by encouraging free thinking!
Here's the part that I find interesting. The whole gravity/space-time curvature is merely an abstraction of gravity into a new dimension.
Ancient people's idea of gravity was simple. Stuff goes down.
Then people figured out that the earth's surface is curved, and "down" didn't work anymore. The new theory of gravity said that stuff moves toward other stuff, and the earth is a big blob of stuff that all our little stuff moves toward. Kinda simple, but you don't have the nice, straight, linear sort of system. You've got a radial one, and other planets and stars have their own gravity fields that pull stuff toward them, and it's a bit more complex.
So, with this notion of mass curving the surface of space/time in some higher dimension, we envision space/time as a sort of elastic surface. Mass sinks into the surface, and smaller mass will "roll" into the depression caused by the larger mass. Why does the "mass" roll downhill? Well, there's the kicker: this higher dimension apparently has its own sort of gravity, and, like the ancients' theory, it's nice and straight: it always goes down!
That's not actually true. Take a square apiece of paper. Draw a straight line parallel with one side in the middle. Then tear the paper perpendicular to the line from one side to the line. Now pull one side of the tear over the other.
See how the paper bends into a cone? That's what gravity does. It causes "space" to not be flat just like that. However, look what happened to your line. Now it curves around toward the direction of your tear. So it is the geometry of the paper that causes the gravity. It isn't about anything rolling downhill, or about there being another type of gravity pulling everything down a rubber sheet. Instead, the shape of surface causes anything going in a straight line to be deflected towards that tear.
And why does your object tend to go in a straight line? Because of Newton's first law, of course!
Read my post in context with the parent to which I was responding. Original poster used the term "fucking barbaric" to describe a country that executed drug users and I was suggesting they thought a little more about their posting.
Agreed my language should have been more carefully chosen. I completely agree the issue is more nuanced than a short response can provide however felt it would be mostly lost on the original poster, hence decided to give them a blunt response to get them thinking about what they'd written. Perhaps I shouldn't have jumped back at a troll...
Clearly you are more capable of a more rational debate and it would be more pleasant to have a decent conversation and discuss the issues with you rather than User Jaysyn.The issues are indeed complex.
I'd note though that the State of Texas- a part of the USA - apparently still reserves the right to execute under 18 year olds and President Obama has promised to review the failure to ratify the Convention (Ref.)
regards.
I think that it is very strange to defend a blunt response if it can easily be shown to be incorrect. For example, I could call you "fucking barbaric" for murdering children too, but that would be incorrect and certainly unjustified. At very least, your outburst makes you look very silly to me. The context doesn't compare the US to anyone, and the post doesn't imply the author is from the US at all. So your remark about the US is certainly off-topic and not supported by the context.
Your reference from wikipedia is probably incorrect. The citation in wikipedia for the remark, that Texas reserves the right to execute 17 year olds (Texas's previous limit), does not mention Texas at all! I did a search for texas in that article and got nothing, so (unless my browser is malfunctioning) that wikipedia statement seems baseless to me. So I will edit out that reference from the article.
Furthermore, Texas cannot overrule the US constitution, and the supreme court has already ruled on the matter. There was a case mentioned in the wikipedia article where they tried to overturn the ruling in Alabama, but that went nowhere (and rightfully so). So that reference that you cited can not support your argument in any case whether true or not.
Finally, Obama is a politician. He cares a lot about symbols, as shown by his public reasons for "firing" a CEO. I repeat that: he forced a person to retire from his job because Obama wanted to emphasize a point. Doesn't matter if it was justified for other reasons or not - that was the reason suggested by the man himself. Obama also recently suggested a world without nuclear weapons, though there are many reasons that is currently unrealistic. Obama declared it probably won't happen in his lifetime, in fact! So the point of mentioning that goal was also symbolic. The UN Convention is also a symbol. So Obama's support of ratifying the convention is not surprising, but also not a sign that he thinks it is realistic or even possible in the near future. Of course I could be wrong, but I think this is the likely conclusion.
Only two countries in the World refuse to sign up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and declare their right to execute children as part of their legal processes:
1. Somalia 2. United States of America
Careful who you are calling barbaric, some people might also call executing kids a pretty primitive practice.
Now there are many reasons why we should ratify it. There are also reasons why we might not be able to ratify it. For example, it could be unconstitutional. So it is not a clear issue and should be debated and considered with much thought. However, using loaded words like "barbaric" and "refuse" is unfair when the issue needs more discussion. So you please refrain from such derogatory and untrue characterizations.
I don't think this compares with Fermilab. The fine article is talking about creating positrons, not anti-protons. This isn't the first time I've heard about creating positrons from a laser shown upon a gold foil target. Here are two (from 2004 and 2001 respectively) that I just found on Google Scholar describing a result and a theory behind the positron production:
It also isn't very efficient. They make 10^11 positrons per 400 J of energy input. If those positrons react with 10^11 electrons, they produce gamma rays with the energy 2 * (electron mass * (10^11)) * (c^2) = 0.0163742083 joules. Maybe it is more efficient than Fermilab, but that's still not very much. Since these are light positrons - not heavy anti-protons - I don't think these results would be very useful for fusion. Maybe as a source of gamma rays or as a research tool.
I agree with Eskimo. I'm also a martial artist (BJJ instructor), and we only do dynamic stretches before practice or sparring as well. Instead we begin with a light warm-up to (duh!) warm up the muscles. Then we train sport-specific movements as well as dynamic stretches to build muscle memory and increase flexibility. After practice we might finish with some yoga, but we got rid of the generic static stretches with no problems. Our Muay Thai instructors do the same thing at their practices. As far as I knew, the thesis of this article was common knowledge in the sports world for a while now. It has made us more flexible and faster with less occurring of injuries than when I was doing static stretches. We have some really good fighters and competitors, so I don't doubt our training methods. They seem to be working for us.
The Sky and Telescope article is much better than the Gizmodo blog. The article explains why it can't be closer than 130 ly due to no parallax, though IDK why they didn't use a more sensitive satellite for measuring parallax of objects up to 1600 ly away. Maybe it was only seen after the fact, or the other satellite was not sensitive enough? The thing could not be farther than 11 billion ly either, since otherwise the light would be distorted as it passed through interstellar hydrogen clouds (i.e. "cosmic hydrogen absorption in its spectrum"). The Sky and Telescope article even includes a reference to the original paper describing the phenomenon. I suggest you read that article instead. It is much more interesting!
Like whatever you want, videos directly linked from Slashdot (autoplaying, stupid and loud ones especially, not marked NSFW) are not amusing. Not at all.
There are sites for people who like this stuff. On slashdot, something like this should never get through moderation and firehose.
Why isn't it amusing? If a transcript of this video was created, and pictures demonstrated the device, it would be ok? Why? What if it had links to the demos and just had the "padding" as text? Would that be ok? So why not the entire thing? The article is entirely entertainment, and the video was not only funny but also presented the topic in an entertaining way. This/. article was actually written a lot better than most others. I really hate those stories that copy the first few paragraphs from the source. It shows no creativity and is borderline plagiarism. (One even had a dangling footnote still in the/. summary.)
If you are angry because you got caught at work, well that sucks for you. But don't blame us. I have my browser set up not to autoplay flash unless I specifically allow it. This not only blocks spam, but also prevents this issue. You are already playing around. Why do you have your speakers on? Why do you not check the address first (which is not hidden - the domain is Revver.com aka a well-known video site). Why do you not take precautions when browsing/. at work? Especially for an article clearly marked for entertainment.
You are at work. It is your responsibility to take precautions when you are doing non-work related stuff on your computer. You don't have to be an robot slaving away - I can understand browsing/. on your off time. But you should be smart about it and take precautions like using the mute button or using headphones at very least when at work. Personally, I am not amused by coworkers who keep their speakers on so everyone else can hear Windows startup, beep, alert, and shut down.
Slashdot Mirror
And Blink is based on Webkit, which is based on khtml. MS bought Spyglass Mosaic in 1995, twenty years ago. It had been in development longer by Microsoft by a factor of ten. It isn't Spyglass's baby anymore.
Edge isn't practically bad on standards. We aren't in the early 90s anymore. I haven't encountered many differences between Edge and Chrome or Firefox. If anything, I've run into trouble because Safari won't implement certain web standards.
More volatile climate in the short term as Artic Ice recedes faster. In the longer run, warmer winters than by Global Warming alone due.
Leaving out Boeing would be budget suicide for NASA.
No one should be left out because there should be no contract. Instead, NASA should be fostering a spot market for launches. They should have a separate bid for each launch: "We want X satellite in Y orbit, and insured for Z dollars." Then give the launch to the lowest bidder. That way each company can work continuously to cut costs and improve services, knowing that if they leapfrog the competition, they can win the next launch, instead of being locked out for years.
That is not feesable. It take years to be trained to fly in a spaceship - whether the lifting body like the Shuttle or Dream Chaser, or a capsule such as Soyuz, CST-100, or Dragon V2. You have to build not only the rocket, but a tower to carry the crew to the top of the rocket along with an arm to get the astronauts into the vehicle (which is not compatible/spacecraft). Escape systems need to be installed. It's very expensive, and it would never be built without assurance that the demand is there. At this time, there is no market for launches except from NASA or ESA. Cosmonauts would ride Russian spacecraft, Indians and Chinese are developing their own systems, etc. The public demand is too little at this time. Without a long-term contract, NASA is not enough for your proposal.
Indeed! Russia also requires all telcoms and ISPs, at their expense, to install monitoring equipment of the internet and telephones, This project is called SORM (wikipedia entry for SORM). The system was put into place around 1996-2000, but it has been used as recently as the Winter Olympics (source). It is explicitly a mass-surveillance system, so either Putin is lying or he is bending the truth: Russia doesn't pay for it... but by law the telcoms have to pay it. They don't do illegal wiretapping because it is explicitly legal. And you're right, they might not have the ability to store all that data for long periods of time, but you can be sure they are targeting people. And you can be sure they are targeting foreign governments too (of course). Heck, there were several diplomatic leaks at the beginning of the Crimean crises in order to strain US-EU ties. You can be sure that's due to Russia's intelligence services.
#3 was reported to be a hoax. I don't know whether it is true ir not, but you need to be skeptical if your sources. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2311199/Britam-Defence-David-Goulding-Philip-Doughty.html
Am I the only one that read the statement? It seems to me that they are collecting information. In fact McDonald's doesn't deny they attacked him, they only state that their employees denied it. It's an important distinction. Their employees are quite naturally saying, "We're innocent!" while Mann's saying "They're guilty." Mann provided proof that one of their statements - namely that they didn't damage any of his property - is incorrect. But it doesn't seem McDonalds, as a whole, is calling Mann a liar. Here's the statement:
Q: Do you like movies with gladiators? A: My favorite type is comedy. I like the "Naked Gun" series best. Heck, any movie with Leslie Nielsen it is tops in my book!
Interesting that your quotes comes from "Airplane!", a movie starring Leslie Nielsen.
Sorry for all the responses. I asked Professor Strassler on his website. He replied that it's actually a mystery where the Higgs gets it's mass! It's a very good question. All the other standard model particles, except the neutrino, get their masses via interacting with the Higgs field. We don't really understand neutrinos very well, though.
Whoops. Allow me to correct my own post. Not all of the Higgs particle's mass is from the Higgs Field:
I wonder how it gets the rest of its mass? That's a good question.
They get their masses from the Higgs Field. The W Boson is like a ripple in the W-Field. An electron is like a ripple in the electron-field (not the electrical field). Et cetera. So a Higgs Boson is like a ripple in the Higgs Field. But it still gets is mass by interacting with that field, like most other elementary particles with mass. Here's a good article that explains that: If the Higgs field were zero.
The RIAA and Co. have never sued anyone for using their own music digitally. They have sued when a third party is involved. The issue isn't that you are able to stream your music to you from your own system, or even from a web server somewhere else that you operate. The problem is that you are uploading your songs to Google or Amazon, which may very well be copyright infringement.
The DVD-CCA (an organization run by the motion picture studios) sued Kaleidescape for making a personal server where you could upload your DVDs and then play them anywhere in your house. Kaleidescape won their suit, fortunately. Of course the DVD-CCA isn't the RIAA; however, I feel they are cut from the same cloth.
I concur. The export restrictions are frankly ridiculous in this case. If they wanted to, the Iranian government could just send someone to US to download Google's software for free. If Iran can import centrifuges to purify Uranium, they can surely use proxies to download the software directly too (spoofing their country of origin). It's probably a face-saving gesture for he more "senile" members of congress.
Indeed, Google says they worked with US government officials before releasing the software with these restrictions according to TFA. They believe that releasing the software to Iranians will help promote the flow of information and help them exercise more freedom of speech and assembly, as shown in during protests of the 2009 election in Iran. Someone in the US government probably thinks so too.
IN B4 "Android Fragmentation"
Wasn't that part of the plot to one of the Star Trek movies?
So, were they mislead, or is this more of a type of "buyers remorse"? There are plenty of places where the local population is uneducated and unlikely to fully understand genetic testing, should we stop studying them, and in the process deny them the good (potential treatments for disease that they suffer from) to protect them from "the bad" (the possibility that their world-view will be challenged, or that the data will be applied to larger studies)?
Also, one of the big issues here seems to be that the findings contradict their folklore: Another article, suggesting that the tribe’s ancestors had crossed the frozen Bering Sea to arrive in North America, flew in the face of the tribe’s traditional stories that it had originated in the canyon and was assigned to be its guardian. Listening to the investigators, Ms. Tilousi felt a surge of anger, she recalled. But in Supai, the initial reaction was more of hurt. Though some Havasupai knew already that their ancestors most likely came from Asia, “when people tell us, ‘No, this is not where you are from,’ and your own blood says so — it is confusing to us,” Rex Tilousi said. “It hurts the elders who have been telling these stories to our grandchildren.” So science showed that their fable about springing from the ground in this canyon was, at best, unlikely. So what. We don't accept that the Earth is the center of the universe, that sex with virgins cures disease, that human sacrifice improves crop yield, or that it's turtles all the way down, why should we care about this story either. I'm not inclined to "turn off" science just because results show that a stone-age story is just a story.
I agree with your second part. Challenging anyone's worldview is always a good thing. Whether they are Christians, Havasupai, or even athiests, challenging people with evidence contradicting their ignorance is a good thing! It keeps society from stagnating by encouraging free thinking!
Here's the part that I find interesting. The whole gravity/space-time curvature is merely an abstraction of gravity into a new dimension.
Ancient people's idea of gravity was simple. Stuff goes down.
Then people figured out that the earth's surface is curved, and "down" didn't work anymore. The new theory of gravity said that stuff moves toward other stuff, and the earth is a big blob of stuff that all our little stuff moves toward. Kinda simple, but you don't have the nice, straight, linear sort of system. You've got a radial one, and other planets and stars have their own gravity fields that pull stuff toward them, and it's a bit more complex.
So, with this notion of mass curving the surface of space/time in some higher dimension, we envision space/time as a sort of elastic surface. Mass sinks into the surface, and smaller mass will "roll" into the depression caused by the larger mass. Why does the "mass" roll downhill? Well, there's the kicker: this higher dimension apparently has its own sort of gravity, and, like the ancients' theory, it's nice and straight: it always goes down!
That's not actually true. Take a square apiece of paper. Draw a straight line parallel with one side in the middle. Then tear the paper perpendicular to the line from one side to the line. Now pull one side of the tear over the other. See how the paper bends into a cone? That's what gravity does. It causes "space" to not be flat just like that. However, look what happened to your line. Now it curves around toward the direction of your tear. So it is the geometry of the paper that causes the gravity. It isn't about anything rolling downhill, or about there being another type of gravity pulling everything down a rubber sheet. Instead, the shape of surface causes anything going in a straight line to be deflected towards that tear. And why does your object tend to go in a straight line? Because of Newton's first law, of course!
I think that it is very strange to defend a blunt response if it can easily be shown to be incorrect. For example, I could call you "fucking barbaric" for murdering children too, but that would be incorrect and certainly unjustified. At very least, your outburst makes you look very silly to me. The context doesn't compare the US to anyone, and the post doesn't imply the author is from the US at all. So your remark about the US is certainly off-topic and not supported by the context.
Your reference from wikipedia is probably incorrect. The citation in wikipedia for the remark, that Texas reserves the right to execute 17 year olds (Texas's previous limit), does not mention Texas at all! I did a search for texas in that article and got nothing, so (unless my browser is malfunctioning) that wikipedia statement seems baseless to me. So I will edit out that reference from the article.
Furthermore, Texas cannot overrule the US constitution, and the supreme court has already ruled on the matter. There was a case mentioned in the wikipedia article where they tried to overturn the ruling in Alabama, but that went nowhere (and rightfully so). So that reference that you cited can not support your argument in any case whether true or not.
Finally, Obama is a politician. He cares a lot about symbols, as shown by his public reasons for "firing" a CEO. I repeat that: he forced a person to retire from his job because Obama wanted to emphasize a point. Doesn't matter if it was justified for other reasons or not - that was the reason suggested by the man himself. Obama also recently suggested a world without nuclear weapons, though there are many reasons that is currently unrealistic. Obama declared it probably won't happen in his lifetime, in fact! So the point of mentioning that goal was also symbolic. The UN Convention is also a symbol. So Obama's support of ratifying the convention is not surprising, but also not a sign that he thinks it is realistic or even possible in the near future. Of course I could be wrong, but I think this is the likely conclusion.
If you are going to call the US barbaric, please use a correct reason. Just because we did not "sign up" (we did sign it in fact, just not ratify it) doesn't mean we don't support most of its ideals. The US Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute children as part of our legal processes. So the US is not executing kids, unlike what you are claiming.
Now there are many reasons why we should ratify it. There are also reasons why we might not be able to ratify it. For example, it could be unconstitutional. So it is not a clear issue and should be debated and considered with much thought. However, using loaded words like "barbaric" and "refuse" is unfair when the issue needs more discussion. So you please refrain from such derogatory and untrue characterizations.
It has other emotions, but those are the only ones that Lore allows him to feel. :-p
I don't think this compares with Fermilab. The fine article is talking about creating positrons, not anti-protons. This isn't the first time I've heard about creating positrons from a laser shown upon a gold foil target. Here are two (from 2004 and 2001 respectively) that I just found on Google Scholar describing a result and a theory behind the positron production:
http://llacolen.ciencias.uchile.cl/~vmunoz/download/papers/wclpp05.pdf
http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/lc/local/PolarizedPositrons/doc/ClassicalPapers/B_Shen-J_Meyer-ter-Vehn-PRE65_16405.pdf
It also isn't very efficient. They make 10^11 positrons per 400 J of energy input. If those positrons react with 10^11 electrons, they produce gamma rays with the energy 2 * (electron mass * (10^11)) * (c^2) = 0.0163742083 joules. Maybe it is more efficient than Fermilab, but that's still not very much. Since these are light positrons - not heavy anti-protons - I don't think these results would be very useful for fusion. Maybe as a source of gamma rays or as a research tool.
I agree with Eskimo. I'm also a martial artist (BJJ instructor), and we only do dynamic stretches before practice or sparring as well. Instead we begin with a light warm-up to (duh!) warm up the muscles. Then we train sport-specific movements as well as dynamic stretches to build muscle memory and increase flexibility. After practice we might finish with some yoga, but we got rid of the generic static stretches with no problems. Our Muay Thai instructors do the same thing at their practices. As far as I knew, the thesis of this article was common knowledge in the sports world for a while now. It has made us more flexible and faster with less occurring of injuries than when I was doing static stretches. We have some really good fighters and competitors, so I don't doubt our training methods. They seem to be working for us.
Which Scientific American magazine was that? Date?
The Sky and Telescope article is much better than the Gizmodo blog. The article explains why it can't be closer than 130 ly due to no parallax, though IDK why they didn't use a more sensitive satellite for measuring parallax of objects up to 1600 ly away. Maybe it was only seen after the fact, or the other satellite was not sensitive enough? The thing could not be farther than 11 billion ly either, since otherwise the light would be distorted as it passed through interstellar hydrogen clouds (i.e. "cosmic hydrogen absorption in its spectrum"). The Sky and Telescope article even includes a reference to the original paper describing the phenomenon. I suggest you read that article instead. It is much more interesting!
That's not the "DIY" dialysis machine according to that fine article. That's just a normal dialysis machine.
Why isn't it amusing? If a transcript of this video was created, and pictures demonstrated the device, it would be ok? Why? What if it had links to the demos and just had the "padding" as text? Would that be ok? So why not the entire thing? The article is entirely entertainment, and the video was not only funny but also presented the topic in an entertaining way. This /. article was actually written a lot better than most others. I really hate those stories that copy the first few paragraphs from the source. It shows no creativity and is borderline plagiarism. (One even had a dangling footnote still in the /. summary.)
If you are angry because you got caught at work, well that sucks for you. But don't blame us. I have my browser set up not to autoplay flash unless I specifically allow it. This not only blocks spam, but also prevents this issue. You are already playing around. Why do you have your speakers on? Why do you not check the address first (which is not hidden - the domain is Revver.com aka a well-known video site). Why do you not take precautions when browsing /. at work? Especially for an article clearly marked for entertainment.
You are at work. It is your responsibility to take precautions when you are doing non-work related stuff on your computer. You don't have to be an robot slaving away - I can understand browsing /. on your off time. But you should be smart about it and take precautions like using the mute button or using headphones at very least when at work. Personally, I am not amused by coworkers who keep their speakers on so everyone else can hear Windows startup, beep, alert, and shut down.