Although I know it is mainly to make the game darker and scarier, which is more enjoyable to some people (and I rather take fun over realism), I think that it is still not too unconceivable. I am sure they have all of the technology there, but they don't always have their stuff together. One email in the game mentions how they got a shipment of chainsaws by mistake and there seem to be other logistical blunders. So I would guess things don't always run too smoothly there. Maybe their shipment of gun lights and night vision equipment was sent to the moon by accident.
That, and I have to wonder how many flashlights do they need. It is in the future when they would think power should be readily available and everything is supposed to be brightly lit.
And as to the question of why there was no duct tape around, I think the demons knew what they were doing. The first thing they probably did was take all of the duct tape, since they knew its awesome power. Why else would stuff all of sudden start breaking and failing through out the base? Hell does tend to break loose when you can't find any duct tape to hold it in place.
Well, there is the fact that this really is just a game. I for one, would not be too interested in going through the real thing, but had a fun time with the game. There are plenty of "odd" rules and game mechanics that make it unrealistic and seem like a game. It probably wouldn't be too fun to spend $50 and to find that once you die, you can't play any more, since life doesn't have quicksave. The flashlight thing is similar, just a bit more controversial as there are people on both sides. Some thinks it takes away, while plenty still think it added to the game. I think I've gotten more enjoyment out of it because of the unrealistic rule, and to me, enjoyment is what games.are for.
Biodiesel is a lot like normal diesel and is no longer vegetable oil after being processed. If made right, it should not have much left over of the other materials from processing.
Pure vegetable oil is a different thing, but can also run on an engine somewhat cleanly (I ran some short term experiments at a previous job). The problem is that it is so thick, you have to heat up the engine first. So you use some normal diesel, then switch to vegetable oil after a bit. Then before you stop the engine, you have to switch back to normal fuel to get rid of build ups and stuff. Other than that fancy arrangement, it didn't take much to get a diesel engine to run off vegetable oil without additives (like straight from the supermarket).
It would have been nice if I had been paid to run long term experiments too, but I didn't, so I don't know how much build up happens when running more than a couple months. Biodiesel runs cleaner and is a lot closer to normal diesel, so many of the issues with vegetable oil don't show up.
... playing against a computer-controlled enemy was boring long before always-on DSL and Cable, but now it's just laughable
Funny, I was thinking something similar, except that playing against an online enemy was annoying long before always-on DSL and Cable, but now it's just laughable.
Different people have different video game interests. I don't feel like dealing with a bunch of annoying people that either cheat, or claim I cheat, complain when I win, or complain when I lose. Even though I play some multiplayer with people I know at work, my main interest is in the single player games, some of the better ones being the ones that you listed, like Max Payne, FarCry, etc. These games seem to be making money, so there must be others that like them too.
I think you can have a boxed game in stores and still get away with a "free" client.
Several years back, a bunch of my friends and myself got Ascheron's Call when it was available in the store for $20, which included a $20 mail in rebate making it free. I know the mail in rebates kind of stink, but it got it in the store while making the client free. I think it even came with a free month to play on top of that, so it fix the two big complaints people and I have: no free client and no chance to try online play for free.
Of course this was well after the start of the game (probably about a year if I remember right). Why pull stuff like this when you have plenty of people that pay anyways? I think stuff like this might have to happen as the market eventually gets saturated (if it isn't already getting close) and games have to try harder to grab new players.
The US Navy actual does a lot of research of gravity waves, however they are referring to a slightly different definition or nature. Instead they are looking at periodic influences of tides and other aspects of gravity. For example, examining the effects of "gravity waves" on the atmosphere. It also doesn't help that a component of surface waves on the ocean are also called "gravity waves" since these are waves that are working against gravity. A google search shows the stuff does show up in a lot of Navy research documents, and would probably be pretty confusing if it doesn't give enough information to hint it is not the same gravity waves talked about here.
There has been a few popular discussions of gravity wave (in the normal sense) communication, including a short blurb in several magazines that I recently remember referring to a paper about converting electromagnetic waves to gravity waves. I'm skeptical of what is proposed, but it doesn't take too much equipment to test, so I wouldn't be surprised if other people were testing it. Although there is no explicit mentioning of the Navy in any of that I remember.
Unfortunately cancer is a pretty random thing, meaning plenty of those exposed won't get it, while those that aren't can. This is why anecdotal evidence doesn't do well compared to statistical evidence from looking at many people (I think there was a Dilbert TV show making reference to that).
It only takes one damaged cell to start cancer, so that means a single stray gamma ray, ultraviolet ray, carcinogenic molecule, etc. needs to break some DNA in a cell and turn it into a cancer cell. We do have built in defense measures to this that will try to fix damaged DNA or kill cancer cells, but it is not always perfect. But it makes it near impossible to guess the source of a single person's cancer, as we are exposed to trace amounts of such chemicals and radiation every day (a lot of which, probably a majority for most people, is natural).
It is even more complicated as hereditary can affect your chances of getting different types of cancer too. Although I've been involved in several experiments involving a fair amount of radioactive material just in undergraduate labs and will probably get more from my research career (the total so far has been less than that of a dental x-ray), if I get cancer, I would be more likely to think it was a result of a trend showing in my family than my work (assuming something obviously severe doesn't come along).
Also remember that cancer is the second largest cause of death in the United States (a quick google search found this source). 22.9% of Americans will die from cancer. Since there are plenty of cases of cancer being cured, or not killing some one, there stories of people with cancer will be much larger (from the American Cancer Society, it comes out to a one in two chance for men, and a one in three chance for women, of getting cancer sometime in your life... although this probably includes smokers, however prostate and breast cancer account for half the cases respectively).
So expect to hear many stories from people all over the place with cancer, no matter what their background. I am sure many of these nuclear tests didn't help... but it is very hard to say how much they hurt. Let's just hope that progress in finding cures continues.
I am not saying that a degree is meaningless or useless, only that looking at a person's degree alone is a mistake. No matter how tough or well known the school is, there are people that get through the degree program without gaining much. The same goes for work experience.
Having a degree will get your foot in the door, but when it comes down to picking a person to hire, I would be looking at what the person studied and what projects they worked on. You can have one person from MIT who only took the minimum course load, and another from a state school that took extra things and worked on a related research team during the summers. They both have degrees, but the latter probably would be better for the job (assuming they held up in an interview). The important thing is not the degree itself, but what the people had been doing with it, either during their schooling, or after it. It is not that piece of paper that will get you a job, it is whatever skills you picked up while earning that piece of paper.
This is kind of similar to a response I made to another post further up.
I know some people at tops schools that work hard while learning very little and others that do little work, but learn a lot, often from things done on their own.
What each person gets out of college is going to be different. It depends not only on the college itself, but on the person and how/what they did while there. In the end, just knowing someone has a certain college degree does not mean too much. Some one may have just as much, if not more, skill and talent from previous work experience or from a "lesser" college. This is where an interview should become important, to see what they actually got out of their experience and schooling.
Anyways, you are probably going to get yourself into more trouble if your school was a determining factor in getting hired. That job is going to be hell if you don't know what you are doing or should not have been hired for it (assuming you don't transfer your hell to your coworkers). Maybe in this economic slump it is only a matter of getting into a highly competitive position that you are more than qualified for, although that can be difficult to judge straight out of school.
On either end of the hiring process, I would definitely consider a lot more about a person than what school they came, even if it was the top in the field.
Working hard and learning are two different things. I know some students at Caltech that are working very hard, but at the same time learn very little. There are people on the other side that work only a small amount, yet they are learning a lot. Getting a degree from such a place may have some perks, like showing that you can handle stress or some work load, but if you don't know how to do the job you might be in trouble.
What each person gets out of college is going to be different. It depends not only on the college itself, but on the person and how/what they did while there. In the end, just knowing someone has a college degree does not mean too much. Some one may have just as much, if not more, skill and talent from previous work experience. This is where an interview should become important, to see what they actually retain from previous experiences.
I have to wonder about some of these estimates of the number of deaths due to Chernobyl. There are some sources that give much smaller numbers, such as this short summary.
The World Health Organization only seems to predict that there are 3500 deaths as result of the accident, and there is the fact that there are other towns that have natural radiation levels at almost the same level as most parts of the area around the reactor (as long as you are not standing right next to the reactor building). Although I don't mean to say it was something trivial because there were fewer deaths, or that either source is absolutely correct, as it was a mess no matter how many people died.
But at least I learn something from a lot of these games. Maybe I had fun playing some of the WWII games, but I know I would never want to be there, especially since there is no Quick Load feature in a real war. I think as technology improves, games have fewer and fewer restrictions on the plot and subject matter allowing for some of these very important events to be covered in a serious and realistic light. That doesn't mean all of the games are going to be like that. Further more, it sounds like the nasty part with this game is the marketing ploys, and we all know how different the marketing can be from the game itself.
Anyways, I would rather an issue be brought instead of lost in time though. At least it may spark the interests to look into the real event (unless they actually believe the real event involved mutants and monsters and hence the game was accurate).
Actually, I think this gets a bit tricky since things will vary a lot from person to person. Different people will consider different traits of a game as its core components.
Quake makes a good example for this, since I liked the bit of story and single player mission components of the first two games. But I never did bother to get the third one. It was not really bad, just not that good in my opinion as it lost too many components that I liked about the other Quake games. I know there are others that agree with me on that, while I also know plenty of people that liked the third game a lot.
I think the story can be an important part of a game series for many people. So it is not that games are completely different than TV shows, but instead games have a superset of the traits within a TV show, e.g. both have story and possibly acting, but games have additional ones like game play. This means there are a lot more things to consider and possibly screw up.
One of the amazing things about the English language and languages in general, are their ability to be continuously changing and to adapt to how people use words over time.
Webster's Dictionary seems to define piracy, in definition 3, as copyright infringement. Similarly, if you look at the definition of to steal, it only says to take or appropriate, it says nothing about the original owner losing anything. Like the example they give to "steal a kiss," that doesn't imply it stops, say the original boyfriend, from kissing the girl (unless it was a really good kiss...).
Of course the dictionary doesn't carry the connotations of the words, which are slightly different. People are going to use the connotation that represents their opinion of how bad the act is. And since whether this is wrong or not is an opinion and not a fact (as in morally, not legally), this is going to differ between people. If the RIAA wants to communicate it is morally wrong in addition to legally wrong, as they are perfectly allowed to do, they will probably want to use a stronger word. In a legal sense, things a little different and legalese is definitely more precise... but thankfully we don't all speak or communicate in legalese.
I think it is pointless to debate over which single word they should be using, since all of them seem to work. Instead, I think some people need to say why they think it is right or wrong instead of hiding behind claiming which word is the only correct word since it happens to have a better connotation.
I think the poster means the velocity's direction does not matter if you are ignoring friction. If you were to travel with escape velocity towards the center of the Earth, without hitting something, you would come out of the other side of the gravity well with the same velocity at the same altitude and would be ready to go. However, in the real world the Earth is kind of the way and hitting it at escape velocity would be one heck of demonstration of friction. In that case your velocity direction determines how your kinetic energy is divided between liquefying your craft and spreading the remaining parts across the planet.
I was not in the Intel STS, but did attend the International Science and Engineering Fair a few years ago. People that have help from their parents tend to stand out when you actually talk to them about their project. I can't say every one of them gets weeded out, especially at the more local competitions. But by that level the judging is done pretty well. Some of them that won and had help from the parents might still actually know their stuff and still deserve something. It can't really be judged without talking to them in person.
The one thing the annoyed me early on was not the help from parents, but instead the help from universities. I grew up far from a major university and without a school science program like some of the other high schools have, so I didn't have access to a lot of the equipment some did (but they at least don't have the experience of setting the garage on fire). Some of these people seem to work completely in the shadow of a professor, although as with the help from the parents, most of them get weeded out if the student doesn't know what they are doing. At least my experience of using a very tight budget and common equipment has carried over into my research now and keeps my boss happy for not spending much.
The one thing the surprised me in the end though, was how amazingly noncompetitive the competition itself ended up. I know that all of the people from my area that were going got all psyched up beforehand and ready to kick butt. But once you get there, that all seems to fade away and instead you have a good time talking to all of the other students about their projects. The ones that get too much help on their projects tend to miss out on this part, since they may lack the interest and/or knowledge to keep up with all of the people. It would have been nice to win more money (financial aid has me covered anyways), but what I will remember most about it was all the students I met from all over the world and all the cool stuff every one did.
I've made the same complaint to my boss before, but he said it wouldn't make any difference since my project funds would not cover the flux capacitor, let alone a car that can handle 88 mph. He said he might consider extending the funds if I made a Mr. Fusion that worked on bananas and flat beer (I happen to work in a plasma physics/fusion lab).
But at least when we turn it up into the 8 kV range, we can brag about having a machine output a million horsepower (even if it is for 10-20 microseconds).
Judging by the description above (yeah it can be wrong, but the site is down for the moment) this sounds a lot like the capacitor bank in the lab I work in. Unlike a tesla coil, this think puts out some serious current. The one we have will output around 120,000 amps at 5 kV. It won't be that much if say a human were in between the connections, but that would be enough to give 250 mA of current to anything with less than 20 kOhm resistance. This sounds very similar to the setup this guy has, so I imagine it can be very dangerous. The lab seems somewhat lax about some of it, but that is because a huge amount of the wiring is well enclosed, which tends to be the exact opposite of all of my home projects.
Even then you have to be careful around pulses of this much current, since often weird things happen with ground. The grounded vacuum chamber we fire this stuff into will often get potentials of several hundred volts across different parts of the same metal chamber. Or if you have something connected to ground in two ways, you can induce a current going from one ground to the other. So it is a matter of knowing what not to touch with your hands or certain equipment when the thing fires.
Actually, I think we both agree on this quite well, since I would question burning the stuff from trees unless I knew exactly how much junk was released in different disposal methods. I was just trying to explain "no net CO2" argument above since I heard it a lot at a job I had related to biodiesel. There is also a big difference between what I would want to burn in my house, for like stove or furnace, than in my car. Assuming a greasy fast food wrapper is like biodiesel (biodiesel can be made from used fast food frying oil), then from pollution measurements I did, I know it is clean in terms of some pollutants, like sulfur based ones. But the pollution monitoring equipment must not detect the "french fry" molecule since everything within 20 feet of the biodiesel engine smells strongly of french fries.
If artwork identifies the software, then what exactly does "the software" mean? How much can you change the code to Firefox and still call it the same software? The overly extreme example would be to strip 99% of code and build something else on top of it. Maybe changing one line of code makes it the same software, or maybe not. If a line is to be drawn, the only people that I can see having any say in what is or isn't called Firefox are the people that made the original program. It just happens that they are choosing a much narrower definition of "the software" than other projects. Whether or not that is a bad choice is another issue.
Assuming you don't cut down a bunch of rain forests or something to grow your crops, you are growing stuff that would not have been growing otherwise that pulls extra CO2 out of the air. This "no net CO2" thing is mostly used in reference to biodiesel instead of the paper and stuff, where fuel comes from short-lived corn instead of trees. Of course recycling would be better for the paper. But for stuff like greasy food containers, it might be better than throwing it in a dump where it will release stuff, like methane, into the atmosphere (I have don't know which way produces more nasty junk, but the methane is a stronger greenhouse gas compared to the same amount of CO2). It is not a matter of burning something just for the sake of power, but instead what to do with the garbage leftover. The process could potentially be relatively clean, although a bad implementation would be dirty in the same way a hydrogen powered car would be dirty if you generate the hydrogen with electricity from a fossil fuel plant.
They do release CO2, but there is no net change in the CO2 in the atmosphere. Since the carbon in the plants comes from pulling CO2 out of the air, burning any recently living plant material would just release CO2 that was already was previously in the air.
My dual channel memory has a 6.4 GB/s bandwidth, so I would think it could at least collect the data, especially since this is likely for large scale applications with fast equipment. Altough I agree the headline is misleading for all of the reasons posted so far.
Some of the changes were to rebalance things and to make it so that you needed to use skills instead of just carpet bombing things. Like with the rocker launcher, you need to aim with three rockets instead of just spraying 8 of them into an open area with fighting. I like the balance since I can kill just about as well with any weapon with a small deviation for the flak cannon (I have to try and avoid getting "flak monkey") and the assault rifle. I don't think the assault rifle is bad for a default gun, just doesn't have anything special either. The charged grenade is useful for pushing back people if you are making a dash for a better gun.
Of course I can't kill as easy with some of the weapons as compared to the original UT, but neither can other people. I think the balancing in this game lets me have more fun by just grabbing something and going, instead getting torn up by the same thing over and over again or only being able to compete by sniping which gets boring real quick for me.
A protium-protium reaction is an example that would not release neutrons, only a bunch of neutrinos (not exactly a health threat), although it requires higher temperatures.
But even if the temperature requirements didn't make a difference, a lot of reactor designs use the free neutrons for collecting the energy from the plasma since they can escape any magnetic confinement used to contain the plasma. The best method I have heard for this is to use liquid lithium, since it would become either non-radioactive helium or tritium which can be recycled as fuel. The liquid lithium can then be pumped away to make steam.
Another thing that may help is to use a simpler design than the tokamak, since the tokamak has a lot of junk (shielding, electromagnetic coils, etc.) in the vicinity of the reaction. If they can get the temperature up, alternative designs, like the spheromak which I have experience with, would greatly reduce the stuff that would have to be replaced due to neutron absorption. This radioactive waste would not be anywhere near that of a fission reaction anyways, since it would likely be much weaker with much shorter half-lives.
I have heard from several of the people on the Caltech team that they are using computer code from some of the Mars rovers since JPL is owned by Caltech. I have not been able to find out more information as the ones I know have either graduated or specialized on another part of the project.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I know it is mainly to make the game darker and scarier, which is more enjoyable to some people (and I rather take fun over realism), I think that it is still not too unconceivable. I am sure they have all of the technology there, but they don't always have their stuff together. One email in the game mentions how they got a shipment of chainsaws by mistake and there seem to be other logistical blunders. So I would guess things don't always run too smoothly there. Maybe their shipment of gun lights and night vision equipment was sent to the moon by accident.
That, and I have to wonder how many flashlights do they need. It is in the future when they would think power should be readily available and everything is supposed to be brightly lit.
And as to the question of why there was no duct tape around, I think the demons knew what they were doing. The first thing they probably did was take all of the duct tape, since they knew its awesome power. Why else would stuff all of sudden start breaking and failing through out the base? Hell does tend to break loose when you can't find any duct tape to hold it in place.
Well, there is the fact that this really is just a game. I for one, would not be too interested in going through the real thing, but had a fun time with the game. There are plenty of "odd" rules and game mechanics that make it unrealistic and seem like a game. It probably wouldn't be too fun to spend $50 and to find that once you die, you can't play any more, since life doesn't have quicksave. The flashlight thing is similar, just a bit more controversial as there are people on both sides. Some thinks it takes away, while plenty still think it added to the game. I think I've gotten more enjoyment out of it because of the unrealistic rule, and to me, enjoyment is what games.are for.
Biodiesel is a lot like normal diesel and is no longer vegetable oil after being processed. If made right, it should not have much left over of the other materials from processing.
Pure vegetable oil is a different thing, but can also run on an engine somewhat cleanly (I ran some short term experiments at a previous job). The problem is that it is so thick, you have to heat up the engine first. So you use some normal diesel, then switch to vegetable oil after a bit. Then before you stop the engine, you have to switch back to normal fuel to get rid of build ups and stuff. Other than that fancy arrangement, it didn't take much to get a diesel engine to run off vegetable oil without additives (like straight from the supermarket).
It would have been nice if I had been paid to run long term experiments too, but I didn't, so I don't know how much build up happens when running more than a couple months. Biodiesel runs cleaner and is a lot closer to normal diesel, so many of the issues with vegetable oil don't show up.
Funny, I was thinking something similar, except that playing against an online enemy was annoying long before always-on DSL and Cable, but now it's just laughable.
Different people have different video game interests. I don't feel like dealing with a bunch of annoying people that either cheat, or claim I cheat, complain when I win, or complain when I lose. Even though I play some multiplayer with people I know at work, my main interest is in the single player games, some of the better ones being the ones that you listed, like Max Payne, FarCry, etc. These games seem to be making money, so there must be others that like them too.
I think you can have a boxed game in stores and still get away with a "free" client.
Several years back, a bunch of my friends and myself got Ascheron's Call when it was available in the store for $20, which included a $20 mail in rebate making it free. I know the mail in rebates kind of stink, but it got it in the store while making the client free. I think it even came with a free month to play on top of that, so it fix the two big complaints people and I have: no free client and no chance to try online play for free.
Of course this was well after the start of the game (probably about a year if I remember right). Why pull stuff like this when you have plenty of people that pay anyways? I think stuff like this might have to happen as the market eventually gets saturated (if it isn't already getting close) and games have to try harder to grab new players.
The US Navy actual does a lot of research of gravity waves, however they are referring to a slightly different definition or nature. Instead they are looking at periodic influences of tides and other aspects of gravity. For example, examining the effects of "gravity waves" on the atmosphere. It also doesn't help that a component of surface waves on the ocean are also called "gravity waves" since these are waves that are working against gravity. A google search shows the stuff does show up in a lot of Navy research documents, and would probably be pretty confusing if it doesn't give enough information to hint it is not the same gravity waves talked about here.
There has been a few popular discussions of gravity wave (in the normal sense) communication, including a short blurb in several magazines that I recently remember referring to a paper about converting electromagnetic waves to gravity waves. I'm skeptical of what is proposed, but it doesn't take too much equipment to test, so I wouldn't be surprised if other people were testing it. Although there is no explicit mentioning of the Navy in any of that I remember.
Unfortunately cancer is a pretty random thing, meaning plenty of those exposed won't get it, while those that aren't can. This is why anecdotal evidence doesn't do well compared to statistical evidence from looking at many people (I think there was a Dilbert TV show making reference to that).
It only takes one damaged cell to start cancer, so that means a single stray gamma ray, ultraviolet ray, carcinogenic molecule, etc. needs to break some DNA in a cell and turn it into a cancer cell. We do have built in defense measures to this that will try to fix damaged DNA or kill cancer cells, but it is not always perfect. But it makes it near impossible to guess the source of a single person's cancer, as we are exposed to trace amounts of such chemicals and radiation every day (a lot of which, probably a majority for most people, is natural).
It is even more complicated as hereditary can affect your chances of getting different types of cancer too. Although I've been involved in several experiments involving a fair amount of radioactive material just in undergraduate labs and will probably get more from my research career (the total so far has been less than that of a dental x-ray), if I get cancer, I would be more likely to think it was a result of a trend showing in my family than my work (assuming something obviously severe doesn't come along).
Also remember that cancer is the second largest cause of death in the United States (a quick google search found this source). 22.9% of Americans will die from cancer. Since there are plenty of cases of cancer being cured, or not killing some one, there stories of people with cancer will be much larger (from the American Cancer Society, it comes out to a one in two chance for men, and a one in three chance for women, of getting cancer sometime in your life... although this probably includes smokers, however prostate and breast cancer account for half the cases respectively).
So expect to hear many stories from people all over the place with cancer, no matter what their background. I am sure many of these nuclear tests didn't help... but it is very hard to say how much they hurt. Let's just hope that progress in finding cures continues.
I am not saying that a degree is meaningless or useless, only that looking at a person's degree alone is a mistake. No matter how tough or well known the school is, there are people that get through the degree program without gaining much. The same goes for work experience.
Having a degree will get your foot in the door, but when it comes down to picking a person to hire, I would be looking at what the person studied and what projects they worked on. You can have one person from MIT who only took the minimum course load, and another from a state school that took extra things and worked on a related research team during the summers. They both have degrees, but the latter probably would be better for the job (assuming they held up in an interview). The important thing is not the degree itself, but what the people had been doing with it, either during their schooling, or after it. It is not that piece of paper that will get you a job, it is whatever skills you picked up while earning that piece of paper.
This is kind of similar to a response I made to another post further up.
I know some people at tops schools that work hard while learning very little and others that do little work, but learn a lot, often from things done on their own.
What each person gets out of college is going to be different. It depends not only on the college itself, but on the person and how/what they did while there. In the end, just knowing someone has a certain college degree does not mean too much. Some one may have just as much, if not more, skill and talent from previous work experience or from a "lesser" college. This is where an interview should become important, to see what they actually got out of their experience and schooling.
Anyways, you are probably going to get yourself into more trouble if your school was a determining factor in getting hired. That job is going to be hell if you don't know what you are doing or should not have been hired for it (assuming you don't transfer your hell to your coworkers). Maybe in this economic slump it is only a matter of getting into a highly competitive position that you are more than qualified for, although that can be difficult to judge straight out of school.
On either end of the hiring process, I would definitely consider a lot more about a person than what school they came, even if it was the top in the field.
Working hard and learning are two different things. I know some students at Caltech that are working very hard, but at the same time learn very little. There are people on the other side that work only a small amount, yet they are learning a lot. Getting a degree from such a place may have some perks, like showing that you can handle stress or some work load, but if you don't know how to do the job you might be in trouble.
What each person gets out of college is going to be different. It depends not only on the college itself, but on the person and how/what they did while there. In the end, just knowing someone has a college degree does not mean too much. Some one may have just as much, if not more, skill and talent from previous work experience. This is where an interview should become important, to see what they actually retain from previous experiences.
I have to wonder about some of these estimates of the number of deaths due to Chernobyl. There are some sources that give much smaller numbers, such as this short summary. The World Health Organization only seems to predict that there are 3500 deaths as result of the accident, and there is the fact that there are other towns that have natural radiation levels at almost the same level as most parts of the area around the reactor (as long as you are not standing right next to the reactor building). Although I don't mean to say it was something trivial because there were fewer deaths, or that either source is absolutely correct, as it was a mess no matter how many people died.
But at least I learn something from a lot of these games. Maybe I had fun playing some of the WWII games, but I know I would never want to be there, especially since there is no Quick Load feature in a real war. I think as technology improves, games have fewer and fewer restrictions on the plot and subject matter allowing for some of these very important events to be covered in a serious and realistic light. That doesn't mean all of the games are going to be like that. Further more, it sounds like the nasty part with this game is the marketing ploys, and we all know how different the marketing can be from the game itself.
Anyways, I would rather an issue be brought instead of lost in time though. At least it may spark the interests to look into the real event (unless they actually believe the real event involved mutants and monsters and hence the game was accurate).
Actually, I think this gets a bit tricky since things will vary a lot from person to person. Different people will consider different traits of a game as its core components.
Quake makes a good example for this, since I liked the bit of story and single player mission components of the first two games. But I never did bother to get the third one. It was not really bad, just not that good in my opinion as it lost too many components that I liked about the other Quake games. I know there are others that agree with me on that, while I also know plenty of people that liked the third game a lot.
I think the story can be an important part of a game series for many people. So it is not that games are completely different than TV shows, but instead games have a superset of the traits within a TV show, e.g. both have story and possibly acting, but games have additional ones like game play. This means there are a lot more things to consider and possibly screw up.
One of the amazing things about the English language and languages in general, are their ability to be continuously changing and to adapt to how people use words over time.
Webster's Dictionary seems to define piracy, in definition 3, as copyright infringement. Similarly, if you look at the definition of to steal, it only says to take or appropriate, it says nothing about the original owner losing anything. Like the example they give to "steal a kiss," that doesn't imply it stops, say the original boyfriend, from kissing the girl (unless it was a really good kiss...).
Of course the dictionary doesn't carry the connotations of the words, which are slightly different. People are going to use the connotation that represents their opinion of how bad the act is. And since whether this is wrong or not is an opinion and not a fact (as in morally, not legally), this is going to differ between people. If the RIAA wants to communicate it is morally wrong in addition to legally wrong, as they are perfectly allowed to do, they will probably want to use a stronger word. In a legal sense, things a little different and legalese is definitely more precise... but thankfully we don't all speak or communicate in legalese.
I think it is pointless to debate over which single word they should be using, since all of them seem to work. Instead, I think some people need to say why they think it is right or wrong instead of hiding behind claiming which word is the only correct word since it happens to have a better connotation.
I think the poster means the velocity's direction does not matter if you are ignoring friction. If you were to travel with escape velocity towards the center of the Earth, without hitting something, you would come out of the other side of the gravity well with the same velocity at the same altitude and would be ready to go. However, in the real world the Earth is kind of the way and hitting it at escape velocity would be one heck of demonstration of friction. In that case your velocity direction determines how your kinetic energy is divided between liquefying your craft and spreading the remaining parts across the planet.
I was not in the Intel STS, but did attend the International Science and Engineering Fair a few years ago. People that have help from their parents tend to stand out when you actually talk to them about their project. I can't say every one of them gets weeded out, especially at the more local competitions. But by that level the judging is done pretty well. Some of them that won and had help from the parents might still actually know their stuff and still deserve something. It can't really be judged without talking to them in person.
The one thing the annoyed me early on was not the help from parents, but instead the help from universities. I grew up far from a major university and without a school science program like some of the other high schools have, so I didn't have access to a lot of the equipment some did (but they at least don't have the experience of setting the garage on fire). Some of these people seem to work completely in the shadow of a professor, although as with the help from the parents, most of them get weeded out if the student doesn't know what they are doing. At least my experience of using a very tight budget and common equipment has carried over into my research now and keeps my boss happy for not spending much.
The one thing the surprised me in the end though, was how amazingly noncompetitive the competition itself ended up. I know that all of the people from my area that were going got all psyched up beforehand and ready to kick butt. But once you get there, that all seems to fade away and instead you have a good time talking to all of the other students about their projects. The ones that get too much help on their projects tend to miss out on this part, since they may lack the interest and/or knowledge to keep up with all of the people. It would have been nice to win more money (financial aid has me covered anyways), but what I will remember most about it was all the students I met from all over the world and all the cool stuff every one did.
I've made the same complaint to my boss before, but he said it wouldn't make any difference since my project funds would not cover the flux capacitor, let alone a car that can handle 88 mph. He said he might consider extending the funds if I made a Mr. Fusion that worked on bananas and flat beer (I happen to work in a plasma physics/fusion lab).
But at least when we turn it up into the 8 kV range, we can brag about having a machine output a million horsepower (even if it is for 10-20 microseconds).
Judging by the description above (yeah it can be wrong, but the site is down for the moment) this sounds a lot like the capacitor bank in the lab I work in. Unlike a tesla coil, this think puts out some serious current. The one we have will output around 120,000 amps at 5 kV. It won't be that much if say a human were in between the connections, but that would be enough to give 250 mA of current to anything with less than 20 kOhm resistance. This sounds very similar to the setup this guy has, so I imagine it can be very dangerous. The lab seems somewhat lax about some of it, but that is because a huge amount of the wiring is well enclosed, which tends to be the exact opposite of all of my home projects.
Even then you have to be careful around pulses of this much current, since often weird things happen with ground. The grounded vacuum chamber we fire this stuff into will often get potentials of several hundred volts across different parts of the same metal chamber. Or if you have something connected to ground in two ways, you can induce a current going from one ground to the other. So it is a matter of knowing what not to touch with your hands or certain equipment when the thing fires.
Actually, I think we both agree on this quite well, since I would question burning the stuff from trees unless I knew exactly how much junk was released in different disposal methods. I was just trying to explain "no net CO2" argument above since I heard it a lot at a job I had related to biodiesel. There is also a big difference between what I would want to burn in my house, for like stove or furnace, than in my car. Assuming a greasy fast food wrapper is like biodiesel (biodiesel can be made from used fast food frying oil), then from pollution measurements I did, I know it is clean in terms of some pollutants, like sulfur based ones. But the pollution monitoring equipment must not detect the "french fry" molecule since everything within 20 feet of the biodiesel engine smells strongly of french fries.
If artwork identifies the software, then what exactly does "the software" mean? How much can you change the code to Firefox and still call it the same software? The overly extreme example would be to strip 99% of code and build something else on top of it. Maybe changing one line of code makes it the same software, or maybe not. If a line is to be drawn, the only people that I can see having any say in what is or isn't called Firefox are the people that made the original program. It just happens that they are choosing a much narrower definition of "the software" than other projects. Whether or not that is a bad choice is another issue.
Assuming you don't cut down a bunch of rain forests or something to grow your crops, you are growing stuff that would not have been growing otherwise that pulls extra CO2 out of the air. This "no net CO2" thing is mostly used in reference to biodiesel instead of the paper and stuff, where fuel comes from short-lived corn instead of trees. Of course recycling would be better for the paper. But for stuff like greasy food containers, it might be better than throwing it in a dump where it will release stuff, like methane, into the atmosphere (I have don't know which way produces more nasty junk, but the methane is a stronger greenhouse gas compared to the same amount of CO2). It is not a matter of burning something just for the sake of power, but instead what to do with the garbage leftover. The process could potentially be relatively clean, although a bad implementation would be dirty in the same way a hydrogen powered car would be dirty if you generate the hydrogen with electricity from a fossil fuel plant.
They do release CO2, but there is no net change in the CO2 in the atmosphere. Since the carbon in the plants comes from pulling CO2 out of the air, burning any recently living plant material would just release CO2 that was already was previously in the air.
My dual channel memory has a 6.4 GB/s bandwidth, so I would think it could at least collect the data, especially since this is likely for large scale applications with fast equipment. Altough I agree the headline is misleading for all of the reasons posted so far.
Some of the changes were to rebalance things and to make it so that you needed to use skills instead of just carpet bombing things. Like with the rocker launcher, you need to aim with three rockets instead of just spraying 8 of them into an open area with fighting. I like the balance since I can kill just about as well with any weapon with a small deviation for the flak cannon (I have to try and avoid getting "flak monkey") and the assault rifle. I don't think the assault rifle is bad for a default gun, just doesn't have anything special either. The charged grenade is useful for pushing back people if you are making a dash for a better gun.
Of course I can't kill as easy with some of the weapons as compared to the original UT, but neither can other people. I think the balancing in this game lets me have more fun by just grabbing something and going, instead getting torn up by the same thing over and over again or only being able to compete by sniping which gets boring real quick for me.
A protium-protium reaction is an example that would not release neutrons, only a bunch of neutrinos (not exactly a health threat), although it requires higher temperatures.
But even if the temperature requirements didn't make a difference, a lot of reactor designs use the free neutrons for collecting the energy from the plasma since they can escape any magnetic confinement used to contain the plasma. The best method I have heard for this is to use liquid lithium, since it would become either non-radioactive helium or tritium which can be recycled as fuel. The liquid lithium can then be pumped away to make steam.
Another thing that may help is to use a simpler design than the tokamak, since the tokamak has a lot of junk (shielding, electromagnetic coils, etc.) in the vicinity of the reaction. If they can get the temperature up, alternative designs, like the spheromak which I have experience with, would greatly reduce the stuff that would have to be replaced due to neutron absorption. This radioactive waste would not be anywhere near that of a fission reaction anyways, since it would likely be much weaker with much shorter half-lives.
I have heard from several of the people on the Caltech team that they are using computer code from some of the Mars rovers since JPL is owned by Caltech. I have not been able to find out more information as the ones I know have either graduated or specialized on another part of the project.