Now I can record even more TV that I'll never get around to watching. Technology is great and progress is divine.
Ha ha, but seriously....
Letting the automation pull the the needles out of the hundreds-of-channels vast wasteland haystack is a classic example of using automation to do the drudgery, leaving you to do the interesting stuff.
There's two hundred channels of crud and 20 minutes per day of stuff of interest? Let the computer watch the junk sieve out the jems for you. That way you don't need to be rich enough to hire an army of interns to do the same.
Or better yet, once in court and under questioning invoke the 5th Amendment. It does work once there. It cannot be used to trump a subpoena and skip out on testifying as a witness.
Until they give you a grant of immunity. Then it doesn't work anymore.
There are two kinds of immunity: Transactional immunity (witness can not ever be prosecuted for crimes related to his testimony) and Use immunity (they can't use your testimony, or any evidence they gather based on its information, against you - but if they find other evidence you're fair game.)
Unfortunately the Supreme Court has ruled that Use Immunity is enough to extinguish the 5th Amendment right and federal prosecutors rarely offer Transactional. Some states have more stringent laws, constitutions, or constitutional interpretations and Transactional immunity must be offered before their courts may compel testimony.
Of course prosecution is not the only life risk for a witness. I know of at least one person, here in the disarmed-citizen utopia of California who has stated an intent to "not have seen anything" unless granted a perpetual concealed carry license.
Quite some time back the people administering the low-income (and gang-ridden) housing projects in south Chicago decided to search all the units for guns. The NRA and the ACLU sued (successfully) to block this unwarranted search of the residents' homes.
they all start with some common underlying mamallian hearing genes and then they tweak them to develop echolocation.
Actually, a lot of animals that aren't credited with using echolocation actually use a variation of it: Sounds from their own motion (such as footsteps) create echoes, which their hearing system processes into a map of nearby objects.
People, for instance, do this. That's why you can "feel" the nearness of walls and objects in the room (especially those near or immediately behind you) without looking, when you're moving.
There's at least one recorded instance of a totally blind child who learned to ride a bicycle and avoid objects, by making clicking sounds with his mouth to provide excitation for this system.
(The hearing system of things like mammals is evolved from the lateral line of fish - which both detects other nearby fish by direction-finding on the sound from their muscle twitches and other sound-reflecting objects by detecting the echoes of muscle twitches of the fish doing the listening. (A flat surface, for instance, would produce an acoustic mirror image of the fish every time it twitched, identifying the return as an echo of the fish itself.) It would not surprise me if the processing for echolocation in other animals is just a revival or slight remapping of this same mechanism.)
please, please... pass on this advice to a Progressive
While you're at it, point out that a lot of their prescriptions INCREASE risk while purporting to reduce it. It's doubly annoying when they work so hard, throwing money, effort, and restrictive laws into trying to solve a problem when the effort and sacrifice actually makes it worse, in a positive feedback loop.
Progressives have no monopoly on this, either. Neocons, consdrvatives, and even Libertarians do it as well. It's easy for all to do things to attack a problem and not see that the indirect effects of the effort cause more harm (even in terms of the problem being attacked) than the first-order effects help.
Some examples:
- Gun control: Private ownership and carrying of guns REDUCES crime, violence, victimization, and death, while citizen disarmament increases them.
- Attempts to police the world produce "blowback", creating new and/or motivating existing enemies, increasing, rather than decreasing, the risk and costs to the US from war.
- Drug prohibition creates more drug use and criminal enterprises, rather than reducing drug use, and harms the drug users more than the drugs do. Its component programs often have counterproductive pathologies of their own. One example is the D.A.R.E. program, which attempts to use peer pressure to encourage kids to ignore peer pressure, and has been shown to increase drug use.
- Grabbing advances to any program, rather than considering whether achieving goals in the wrong order makes things worse rather than better. (A Libertarian example: They want both open borders and an end to government wealth distribution such as welfare programs. Unfortunately, opening the borders first leads to an influx of social program dependents, making the overall problem worse (and increasing the voting block to preserve and expand the programs), when fixing or eliminating the programs first would remove most of the downsides to opening the borders later.)
If we extrapolate this curve and assume everything else remains constant, DOOOOOOOOOM!!!!
Darned right. (The authors seem to think the battery makers won't respond to a market for more batteries by building more batteries. Duh!)
As I understand it there's NOTHING blocking production ramp-up for Li-Ion batteries except lack of customer demand, which the auto industry is now rectifying. There's nothing exotic or rare in their composition.
Pretty much ditto for NiMH (except maybe for the price of nickel).
Henry Ford built a bunch of infrastructure to supply his auto company with necessary materials - including building his own steel mills, power plants, and soybean warehousing and processing operations (for early plastics). Any bets on whether Elon Musk would build his own battery plants if the current industry doesn't make him enough (or gouges him on the prices)?
Sure it can. A process can generate a lot of some material which nobody currently needs. The manufacturer will then go and look for a market which can use this material and try to develop that market.
That was the case long ago for gasoline, it was a useless by-product for a long time there...it was actually thrown causing some environmental problems, till they could finally figure out a use for the stuff.
Other examples:
- Plastics
- Asphalt
- "Coal-tar" dies.
- Liquified Natural Gas from remote oil fields (like the Middle East).
One of my favorites: Stove Pellets: They're made of sawdust from lumber mills, which used to be disposed of by burning it on site. They can sell them very cheap and still be far ahead of spending money to get rid of them (especially after EPA regs made burning them pricey). As a result, my house heating (in a mild climate place where shipping raises their price substantially) costs me maybe $300-400/year, vs. several thousand if I were still using natural gas. (It's carbon-neutral, too.)
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.
Four to ten inches per century. Look out for the tidal wave.
Variation by a factor of 2.5? That's VERY noisy data to use for the extrapolation of rates. How few samples and what level of noise do they have that they can't come up with better error margins?
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.
And with noisy data you occasionally get an outlier on one end or the other. Of course if you want to produce panic you treat the biggest excursion as if it's the average, and extrapolate it out for a century. But even if you do that you're talking a whole 12 inches sea rise in a CENTURY.
It's been less than 2.4 centuries since the American Revolution, a little over five since Columbus made his famous trip. Don't you think that, if the sea level gradually rises by a foot per century the new construction will just be up the hills a little more and the companies will move?
And while we're at it, how OLD are these high-tek companies, and how long before they're replaced by a new generation? Do they actually expect to be in existence and in the same buildings after fifty or a hundred years? The mind boggles.
Does this law prevent a "computer product" patent "comprising" a recordable medium containing instructions that when executed by a computer processor perform the steps of: a) do a software emulation of the non-obvious stuff this hardware did.
That's the wording the company's (US) patent lawyers hung on the end of my hardware patents, to keep people from emulating them in FPGAs or software on a really fast processor.
Censorship never slows the spread of word where a disease is concerned, it only adds rumor into the mix, to create confusion.
Sure it does. A prime example is the 1918 Influenza Pandemic and president Wilson's reaction to it.
Wilson and his administration saw news of the disease as promoting a public response that would hamper the war effort, and reporting it to be treason. So he had the government suppress the news and spread disinformation. Among the effects:
- The disease had shown up in one military camp. The commanding officer wanted to quarantine the camp to keep it from spreading throughout the military and the country. But his orders were countermanded from above. Result: Sick and incubating soldiers were shipped all over the country, spreading the disease.
- Disinformation about the nature of the disease, and how to treat it, was disseminated, using the Public Relations resources of the government, which drowned out more accurate statements from the medical community and others. This amounted to a set of government-created and broadly propagated health frauds, some of which persist today, causing those who believe them to waste money and impair their health. Among them is the theory of "autointoxication": that flu (or other disease) symptoms are the result of toxins produced by intestinal flora (if retained too long) and a resulting illusory need for "regularity" - having daily bowel movements at roughly the same time of day. To this day this theory results in laxative overuse and sometimes addiction, vitamin deficiencies, intestinal irritation, and delays in seeking medical attention when it is needed for a real illness.
So censorship CAN slow, or even suppress, the spread of word where a disease is concerned, bury the truth, and stop appropriate handling of a disease.
You can go anywhere in the world and tell someone you're from Oakland, and people will respond by saying "oh, you mean where the Raiders play"
You couldn't do that where I grew up unless you happened to be talking to a rabid professional sports fan. "Oakland" was Oakland MI, a large, and often newsworthy, suburb of Detroit.
I don't think it is "inverse square from the projector to the screen and inverse square back". I think the inverse-square law for light is radiation from a point source, i.e. it describes the drop-off in illumination as the light spreads out, rather than attenuation per se.
The inverse square law is related to light spreading out from a point source. If you have an infinite line source you get inverse first-power. For an infinite plane source it doesn't get dimmer at all.
(That's why the hubble expansion of the starfield and the resulting red shift is important: If the stars were all hanging in there rather than receeding, just about any way you looked you'd see the un-red-shifted surface of a star, which would make your black-body temperature about the average solar surface temperature, rather than a compromise between 4 degrees absolute plus the heating from the sun and the radiant tempreature of the Earth's surface, atmosphere and clouds.)
However, a movie projector is a close approximation to a point source located a few inches behind the projection lens aperture. So it's inverse-square going out to produce a given brightness on any patch of screen.
For any given patch of the screen the light coming back is also inverse-square. If the distant screen were the same size as the close one it would be inverse-fourth-power, as I claimed.
However, the screen in a drive-in is a lot larger than the screen in a theater. Any given retina cell gets the light from the same solid angle regardless of the distance to the screen. This goes up with the square of the distance, exactly canceling the inverse square of the light coming back (assuming both screens use coatings with about the same optical scattering properties). So the effective rule is actually inverse-square, not inverse-fourth-power.
(Inverse fourth-power DOES apply to radar, where the target is the same size regardless of distance and thus doesn't do the cancellation of the inverse-square term on the returning echo.)
DMCA notices are unconstitutional and nobody is obligated to obey.
DMCA notices give service providers who obey them a carrot (actually, the avoidance of a stick): Immunity from being included in the infringement penalties of the case goes to court and the party issuing the DMCA notice prevails.
If we're going to have (I wish we did not... they're bad news) DMCA take-down orders, we also need a law WITH TEETH that criminalizes the abuse of same.
Criminal penalties are junk in cases like this. To get any action you either have to convince a prosecutor to take your side (fat chance!) or win on a civil RICO suit.
On the other hand, statutory civil penalties, similar to those claimed by copyright trolls, seem like just the ticket. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander: Hit them with exactly what they're threatening YOU with.
In the absence of that (which would require passage of a law - though you might try to get such a law at your STATE level...) you might try suing them for damages (including lost income - your estimate, pain-and-suffering, lost of reputation, etc.) resulting from their commission of fraud.
Once you start seeing actual damages for filing false notices, watch them stop.
Why add another layer instead of running it under the native OS?
Because:
- you don't have a port of the service you want to run to the native OS you want to use,
- the native OS you DO have a port to is a P.I.T.B. from a reliability, cost, security, and maintenance standpoint, but
- you DO have an API adaptation layer (i.e. the application's code runs "on the iron" so there's no emulation penalty there) that runs on the OS you want to use and does a darned good job of supporting the parts of the API used by the service's code.
Have people been resuscitated after say, 30 mins or even an hour, and managed to have their brain functions relatively intact?
Absolutely. Look up "Mammalian Diving Reflex".
Brain damage from short-term clinical death happens primarily after revival. The valves routing blood to the parts of the brain that need it stick in the state they were in when the oxygen finally failed.
Muscles contract with stored energy and require metabolism to relax. "Valve off" is contracted, so when blood flow and oxygen is restored, the valves for regions of the brain that were turned down don't get oxygen and can't reopen - and without the blood flow they can't get oxygen, in a viscous circle. Raising the blood pressure to try to force them just blows the vessels, causing a stroke. The nerves die over a half hour to an hour (and kill each other off through glutamate cascade, as dying nerves release glutamate that causes others to fire, deplete their remaining energy reserves, and die in turn.
Mammals, though, have a reflex related to deep diving. When diving deep, the increased pressure increases the partial pressure of oxygen, keeping things running until most of the oxygen is used up. Then coming back back up lowers the pressure further and can leaver the brain oxygen starved for long enough to produce the "valves stuck" phenomenon. To prevent this, mammals have the following reflex: When oxygen is running out AND the body (I think it's the back of the neck) is cold, the valves all open up, so any that get stuck are in the open position. Once oxygen is restored the blood flows, the nerves survive, the muscle gets repowered, and all is well - if thing hadn't been shut down long enough that too many cells died meanwhile.
This was discovered when some victims of drowning in cold water recovered just fine, with no brain damage, after half an hour or more of clinical death. I think the time before damage sets in is something between 25 and 45 minutes.
I don't know how CI's current protocols work. But ALCOR's are designed to include activating the diving reflex, if possible, so the brain's valves stick in the open position.
(This is more to encourage better perfusion of cryoprotectants than to try to make the brain restartable: As of the last time I looked the thought was that brains preserved - even by the best techniques available at the time - would require rebuilding by nanotechnology, so the idea was to preserve as much as possible of whatever might encode memory and personality.)
Running such software [which had been ported from UNIX to Windows but not to Linux] under Linux either meant running Linux on RISC hardware and using a compatibility layer or running the Windows version in Wine. Neither was particularly appealing.
It was a server! What's wrong with running the apps under Wine? What were they running that Wine would have caused them problems?
Also, to be that bright, these don't use LEDs of course: they use very hot bulbs that need to be cooled down with very loud and large fans and cooling systems.
Very hot bulbs? Maybe these days. But the ones I'm familiar with, from a few decadesback, used carbon arcs. Same technology as the WW II antiaircraft spotlights. Incandescent carbon in a pit on the end of a quarter-inch or so carbon rod, being slowly vaporized by electron bombardment. VERY bright. Lots of ultraviolet, too. Plus a little bremstrahlung (thought he voltages are low enough that X-rays aren't all THAT much of an issue).
You BET it needed fans. They also carried off the carbon vapor, as the positive rod vaporized a few inches per reel, along with the nitrogen oxides from heating air that hot and letting it cool.
It's inverse square from the projector to the screen and inverse square back, for a total of inverse fourth power. Increasing the projector-screen distance from a desktop projector to a theater rig to a drive-in, at inverse-fourth-power, means you need a REALLY bright light. A quarter-inch rod with most of the end hotter than the surface of the sun is about right.
It most certainly does not - where did you hear such a thing? There is a steady decline in scores on IQ tests after age 20 or so.
That's what they thought for decades - that intelligence ramped up about linearly until the late teens to early twenties, kneed over, and declined about linearly (though more slowly) until death.
But after IQ tests had been used for a few decades there was a substantial population who had taken IQ tests several times in their lives. Somebody got the bright idea to track the trajectory of individuals as they aged, rather than using different cohorts for each age's scoring, which conflates IQ changes due to aging with IQ difference between generational cohorts.
The results were surprising, and very clear.
The trajectory for individuals was the linear ramp up, knee over, and a gradual, linear, change for the rest of life. But the ramp went UP (about a third as fast as they had previously thought it went DOWN). And it was far more linear than the previous estimates.
Turns out the apparent decline with age was due to a much larger trend of higher IQ scores with later cohorts. Much of psych research since this work has been looking for the causes of the lower IQ in earlier generations: Candidates include improved nutrition (especially eliminating dietary deficiences), better treatments for or prevention of childhood diseases, and so on, better education (in what scores on IQ tests), etc. (One big one turned out to be the elimination of thyroid deficiency by iodizing salt.)
Detailed examination of the effect shows that the high scores aren't rising substantially, but that the lower scores are coming up to approach them - another sign that it was mostly a matter of eliminating brain-harming pathologies rather than a general increase in IQ.
This has been known for decades. Where are you getting the old model? Is it still being taught, after all this time? Or did you see it long ago and miss the later breakthroughs?
The brain as miraculous as it is can only handle a single lifetime of information.
And you have how many multi-lifetime old samples in your research to support this claim.
Come up with a way to give me multiple lifetimes, healthy as I was in my late teens, to see if my brain crashes due to "filling up", and I'm willing to be an experimental subject.
I'm already in my late '60s. I'm also studying for a college degree and getting 4.0 (much better than when I was trying to work my way through college and avoid the draft during the Vietnam era.)
Psych research has shown that intelligence, as measured by I.Q. tests, increases with age. ("Senile dementia" is a handfull of specific diseases, which only a fraction of people get, and eliminating THOSE would obviously be part of "curing" aging.) Meanwhile, the brain's capacity for both memory and processing is very large (as shown by the amount of info people with eidetic memory accumulate, and are able to index and retrieve without apparent problems, over normal life spans.)
So you think there's a limit to how much the brain can handle, a wall we might hit if we cured aging? Let's find out. Bring it on!
Slashdot Mirror
Now I can record even more TV that I'll never get around to watching. Technology is great and progress is divine.
Ha ha, but seriously....
Letting the automation pull the the needles out of the hundreds-of-channels vast wasteland haystack is a classic example of using automation to do the drudgery, leaving you to do the interesting stuff.
There's two hundred channels of crud and 20 minutes per day of stuff of interest? Let the computer watch the junk sieve out the jems for you. That way you don't need to be rich enough to hire an army of interns to do the same.
Or better yet, once in court and under questioning invoke the 5th Amendment. It does work once there. It cannot be used to trump a subpoena and skip out on testifying as a witness.
Until they give you a grant of immunity. Then it doesn't work anymore.
There are two kinds of immunity: Transactional immunity (witness can not ever be prosecuted for crimes related to his testimony) and Use immunity (they can't use your testimony, or any evidence they gather based on its information, against you - but if they find other evidence you're fair game.)
Unfortunately the Supreme Court has ruled that Use Immunity is enough to extinguish the 5th Amendment right and federal prosecutors rarely offer Transactional. Some states have more stringent laws, constitutions, or constitutional interpretations and Transactional immunity must be offered before their courts may compel testimony.
Of course prosecution is not the only life risk for a witness. I know of at least one person, here in the disarmed-citizen utopia of California who has stated an intent to "not have seen anything" unless granted a perpetual concealed carry license.
Quite some time back the people administering the low-income (and gang-ridden) housing projects in south Chicago decided to search all the units for guns. The NRA and the ACLU sued (successfully) to block this unwarranted search of the residents' homes.
they all start with some common underlying mamallian hearing genes and then they tweak them to develop echolocation.
Actually, a lot of animals that aren't credited with using echolocation actually use a variation of it: Sounds from their own motion (such as footsteps) create echoes, which their hearing system processes into a map of nearby objects.
People, for instance, do this. That's why you can "feel" the nearness of walls and objects in the room (especially those near or immediately behind you) without looking, when you're moving.
There's at least one recorded instance of a totally blind child who learned to ride a bicycle and avoid objects, by making clicking sounds with his mouth to provide excitation for this system.
(The hearing system of things like mammals is evolved from the lateral line of fish - which both detects other nearby fish by direction-finding on the sound from their muscle twitches and other sound-reflecting objects by detecting the echoes of muscle twitches of the fish doing the listening. (A flat surface, for instance, would produce an acoustic mirror image of the fish every time it twitched, identifying the return as an echo of the fish itself.) It would not surprise me if the processing for echolocation in other animals is just a revival or slight remapping of this same mechanism.)
please, please ... pass on this advice to a Progressive
While you're at it, point out that a lot of their prescriptions INCREASE risk while purporting to reduce it. It's doubly annoying when they work so hard, throwing money, effort, and restrictive laws into trying to solve a problem when the effort and sacrifice actually makes it worse, in a positive feedback loop.
Progressives have no monopoly on this, either. Neocons, consdrvatives, and even Libertarians do it as well. It's easy for all to do things to attack a problem and not see that the indirect effects of the effort cause more harm (even in terms of the problem being attacked) than the first-order effects help.
Some examples:
- Gun control: Private ownership and carrying of guns REDUCES crime, violence, victimization, and death, while citizen disarmament increases them.
- Attempts to police the world produce "blowback", creating new and/or motivating existing enemies, increasing, rather than decreasing, the risk and costs to the US from war.
- Drug prohibition creates more drug use and criminal enterprises, rather than reducing drug use, and harms the drug users more than the drugs do. Its component programs often have counterproductive pathologies of their own. One example is the D.A.R.E. program, which attempts to use peer pressure to encourage kids to ignore peer pressure, and has been shown to increase drug use.
- Grabbing advances to any program, rather than considering whether achieving goals in the wrong order makes things worse rather than better. (A Libertarian example: They want both open borders and an end to government wealth distribution such as welfare programs. Unfortunately, opening the borders first leads to an influx of social program dependents, making the overall problem worse (and increasing the voting block to preserve and expand the programs), when fixing or eliminating the programs first would remove most of the downsides to opening the borders later.)
Darned right. (The authors seem to think the battery makers won't respond to a market for more batteries by building more batteries. Duh!)
As I understand it there's NOTHING blocking production ramp-up for Li-Ion batteries except lack of customer demand, which the auto industry is now rectifying. There's nothing exotic or rare in their composition.
Pretty much ditto for NiMH (except maybe for the price of nickel).
Henry Ford built a bunch of infrastructure to supply his auto company with necessary materials - including building his own steel mills, power plants, and soybean warehousing and processing operations (for early plastics). Any bets on whether Elon Musk would build his own battery plants if the current industry doesn't make him enough (or gouges him on the prices)?
Other examples:
- Plastics
- Asphalt
- "Coal-tar" dies.
- Liquified Natural Gas from remote oil fields (like the Middle East).
One of my favorites: Stove Pellets: They're made of sawdust from lumber mills, which used to be disposed of by burning it on site. They can sell them very cheap and still be far ahead of spending money to get rid of them (especially after EPA regs made burning them pricey). As a result, my house heating (in a mild climate place where shipping raises their price substantially) costs me maybe $300-400/year, vs. several thousand if I were still using natural gas. (It's carbon-neutral, too.)
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.
Four to ten inches per century. Look out for the tidal wave.
Variation by a factor of 2.5? That's VERY noisy data to use for the extrapolation of rates. How few samples and what level of noise do they have that they can't come up with better error margins?
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.
And with noisy data you occasionally get an outlier on one end or the other. Of course if you want to produce panic you treat the biggest excursion as if it's the average, and extrapolate it out for a century. But even if you do that you're talking a whole 12 inches sea rise in a CENTURY.
It's been less than 2.4 centuries since the American Revolution, a little over five since Columbus made his famous trip. Don't you think that, if the sea level gradually rises by a foot per century the new construction will just be up the hills a little more and the companies will move?
And while we're at it, how OLD are these high-tek companies, and how long before they're replaced by a new generation? Do they actually expect to be in existence and in the same buildings after fifty or a hundred years? The mind boggles.
Start now by placing incentives in place.
Why?
If encroaching seawater is not adequate incentive to get the PHBs to act, they deserve to go bankrupt when their sites flood.
Does this law prevent a "computer product" patent "comprising" a recordable medium containing instructions that when executed by a computer processor perform the steps of: a)
do a software emulation of the non-obvious stuff this hardware did.
That's the wording the company's (US) patent lawyers hung on the end of my hardware patents, to keep people from emulating them in FPGAs or software on a really fast processor.
Not really the same anymore, is it?
Nothing is ever the same. Get used to it. B-)
Nobody born and bred in the U.S of A. ends their correspondence with cheers.
Lots of us do - and have for decades.
I've used it in email practically since there's been email - and I was born and raised almost in the center of the "radio accent" heartland.
It's short and often just the right tone for ending a written communication.
Censorship never slows the spread of word where a disease is concerned, it only adds rumor into the mix, to create confusion.
Sure it does. A prime example is the 1918 Influenza Pandemic and president Wilson's reaction to it.
Wilson and his administration saw news of the disease as promoting a public response that would hamper the war effort, and reporting it to be treason. So he had the government suppress the news and spread disinformation. Among the effects:
- The disease had shown up in one military camp. The commanding officer wanted to quarantine the camp to keep it from spreading throughout the military and the country. But his orders were countermanded from above. Result: Sick and incubating soldiers were shipped all over the country, spreading the disease.
- Disinformation about the nature of the disease, and how to treat it, was disseminated, using the Public Relations resources of the government, which drowned out more accurate statements from the medical community and others. This amounted to a set of government-created and broadly propagated health frauds, some of which persist today, causing those who believe them to waste money and impair their health. Among them is the theory of "autointoxication": that flu (or other disease) symptoms are the result of toxins produced by intestinal flora (if retained too long) and a resulting illusory need for "regularity" - having daily bowel movements at roughly the same time of day. To this day this theory results in laxative overuse and sometimes addiction, vitamin deficiencies, intestinal irritation, and delays in seeking medical attention when it is needed for a real illness.
So censorship CAN slow, or even suppress, the spread of word where a disease is concerned, bury the truth, and stop appropriate handling of a disease.
You can go anywhere in the world and tell someone you're from Oakland, and people will respond by saying "oh, you mean where the Raiders play"
You couldn't do that where I grew up unless you happened to be talking to a rabid professional sports fan. "Oakland" was Oakland MI, a large, and often newsworthy, suburb of Detroit.
I don't think it is "inverse square from the projector to the screen and inverse square back". I think the inverse-square law for light is radiation from a point source, i.e. it describes the drop-off in illumination as the light spreads out, rather than attenuation per se.
The inverse square law is related to light spreading out from a point source. If you have an infinite line source you get inverse first-power. For an infinite plane source it doesn't get dimmer at all.
(That's why the hubble expansion of the starfield and the resulting red shift is important: If the stars were all hanging in there rather than receeding, just about any way you looked you'd see the un-red-shifted surface of a star, which would make your black-body temperature about the average solar surface temperature, rather than a compromise between 4 degrees absolute plus the heating from the sun and the radiant tempreature of the Earth's surface, atmosphere and clouds.)
However, a movie projector is a close approximation to a point source located a few inches behind the projection lens aperture. So it's inverse-square going out to produce a given brightness on any patch of screen.
For any given patch of the screen the light coming back is also inverse-square. If the distant screen were the same size as the close one it would be inverse-fourth-power, as I claimed.
However, the screen in a drive-in is a lot larger than the screen in a theater. Any given retina cell gets the light from the same solid angle regardless of the distance to the screen. This goes up with the square of the distance, exactly canceling the inverse square of the light coming back (assuming both screens use coatings with about the same optical scattering properties). So the effective rule is actually inverse-square, not inverse-fourth-power.
(Inverse fourth-power DOES apply to radar, where the target is the same size regardless of distance and thus doesn't do the cancellation of the inverse-square term on the returning echo.)
After all, wearing a mask of the president might get you accused of racisim.
DMCA notices are unconstitutional and nobody is obligated to obey.
DMCA notices give service providers who obey them a carrot (actually, the avoidance of a stick): Immunity from being included in the infringement penalties of the case goes to court and the party issuing the DMCA notice prevails.
If we're going to have (I wish we did not... they're bad news) DMCA take-down orders, we also need a law WITH TEETH that criminalizes the abuse of same.
Criminal penalties are junk in cases like this. To get any action you either have to convince a prosecutor to take your side (fat chance!) or win on a civil RICO suit.
On the other hand, statutory civil penalties, similar to those claimed by copyright trolls, seem like just the ticket. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander: Hit them with exactly what they're threatening YOU with.
In the absence of that (which would require passage of a law - though you might try to get such a law at your STATE level...) you might try suing them for damages (including lost income - your estimate, pain-and-suffering, lost of reputation, etc.) resulting from their commission of fraud.
Once you start seeing actual damages for filing false notices, watch them stop.
We're on the same page there. B-)
Why add another layer instead of running it under the native OS?
Because:
- you don't have a port of the service you want to run to the native OS you want to use,
- the native OS you DO have a port to is a P.I.T.B. from a reliability, cost, security, and maintenance standpoint, but
- you DO have an API adaptation layer (i.e. the application's code runs "on the iron" so there's no emulation penalty there) that runs on the OS you want to use and does a darned good job of supporting the parts of the API used by the service's code.
When oxygen is running out AND the body (I think it's the back of the neck) is cold,
Face is cold. (Specifically, regions innervated by the Trigeminal nerve.) No other region triggers the reflex.
(It does other things besides the valve thing, too.)
Have people been resuscitated after say, 30 mins or even an hour, and managed to have their brain functions relatively intact?
Absolutely. Look up "Mammalian Diving Reflex".
Brain damage from short-term clinical death happens primarily after revival. The valves routing blood to the parts of the brain that need it stick in the state they were in when the oxygen finally failed.
Muscles contract with stored energy and require metabolism to relax. "Valve off" is contracted, so when blood flow and oxygen is restored, the valves for regions of the brain that were turned down don't get oxygen and can't reopen - and without the blood flow they can't get oxygen, in a viscous circle. Raising the blood pressure to try to force them just blows the vessels, causing a stroke. The
nerves die over a half hour to an hour (and kill each other off through glutamate cascade, as dying nerves release glutamate that causes others to fire, deplete their remaining energy reserves, and die in turn.
Mammals, though, have a reflex related to deep diving. When diving deep, the increased pressure increases the partial pressure of oxygen, keeping things running until most of the oxygen is used up. Then coming back back up lowers the pressure further and can leaver the brain oxygen starved for long enough to produce the "valves stuck" phenomenon. To prevent this, mammals have the following reflex: When oxygen is running out AND the body (I think it's the back of the neck) is cold, the valves all open up, so any that get stuck are in the open position. Once oxygen is restored the blood flows, the nerves survive, the muscle gets repowered, and all is well - if thing hadn't been shut down long enough that too many cells died meanwhile.
This was discovered when some victims of drowning in cold water recovered just fine, with no brain damage, after half an hour or more of clinical death. I think the time before damage sets in is something between 25 and 45 minutes.
I don't know how CI's current protocols work. But ALCOR's are designed to include activating the diving reflex, if possible, so the brain's valves stick in the open position.
(This is more to encourage better perfusion of cryoprotectants than to try to make the brain restartable: As of the last time I looked the thought was that brains preserved - even by the best techniques available at the time - would require rebuilding by nanotechnology, so the idea was to preserve as much as possible of whatever might encode memory and personality.)
Running such software [which had been ported from UNIX to Windows but not to Linux] under Linux either meant running Linux on RISC hardware and using a compatibility layer or running the Windows version in Wine. Neither was particularly appealing.
It was a server! What's wrong with running the apps under Wine? What were they running that Wine would have caused them problems?
Also, to be that bright, these don't use LEDs of course: they use very hot bulbs that need to be cooled down with very loud and large fans and cooling systems.
Very hot bulbs? Maybe these days. But the ones I'm familiar with, from a few decadesback, used carbon arcs. Same technology as the WW II antiaircraft spotlights. Incandescent carbon in a pit on the end of a quarter-inch or so carbon rod, being slowly vaporized by electron bombardment. VERY bright. Lots of ultraviolet, too. Plus a little bremstrahlung (thought he voltages are low enough that X-rays aren't all THAT much of an issue).
You BET it needed fans. They also carried off the carbon vapor, as the positive rod vaporized a few inches per reel, along with the nitrogen oxides from heating air that hot and letting it cool.
It's inverse square from the projector to the screen and inverse square back, for a total of inverse fourth power. Increasing the projector-screen distance from a desktop projector to a theater rig to a drive-in, at inverse-fourth-power, means you need a REALLY bright light. A quarter-inch rod with most of the end hotter than the surface of the sun is about right.
It most certainly does not - where did you hear such a thing? There is a steady decline in scores on IQ tests after age 20 or so.
That's what they thought for decades - that intelligence ramped up about linearly until the late teens to early twenties, kneed over, and declined about linearly (though more slowly) until death.
But after IQ tests had been used for a few decades there was a substantial population who had taken IQ tests several times in their lives. Somebody got the bright idea to track the trajectory of individuals as they aged, rather than using different cohorts for each age's scoring, which conflates IQ changes due to aging with IQ difference between generational cohorts.
The results were surprising, and very clear.
The trajectory for individuals was the linear ramp up, knee over, and a gradual, linear, change for the rest of life. But the ramp went UP (about a third as fast as they had previously thought it went DOWN). And it was far more linear than the previous estimates.
Turns out the apparent decline with age was due to a much larger trend of higher IQ scores with later cohorts. Much of psych research since this work has been looking for the causes of the lower IQ in earlier generations: Candidates include improved nutrition (especially eliminating dietary deficiences), better treatments for or prevention of childhood diseases, and so on, better education (in what scores on IQ tests), etc. (One big one turned out to be the elimination of thyroid deficiency by iodizing salt.)
Detailed examination of the effect shows that the high scores aren't rising substantially, but that the lower scores are coming up to approach them - another sign that it was mostly a matter of eliminating brain-harming pathologies rather than a general increase in IQ.
This has been known for decades. Where are you getting the old model? Is it still being taught, after all this time? Or did you see it long ago and miss the later breakthroughs?
The brain as miraculous as it is can only handle a single lifetime of information.
And you have how many multi-lifetime old samples in your research to support this claim.
Come up with a way to give me multiple lifetimes, healthy as I was in my late teens, to see if my brain crashes due to "filling up", and I'm willing to be an experimental subject.
I'm already in my late '60s. I'm also studying for a college degree and getting 4.0 (much better than when I was trying to work my way through college and avoid the draft during the Vietnam era.)
Psych research has shown that intelligence, as measured by I.Q. tests, increases with age. ("Senile dementia" is a handfull of specific diseases, which only a fraction of people get, and eliminating THOSE would obviously be part of "curing" aging.) Meanwhile, the brain's capacity for both memory and processing is very large (as shown by the amount of info people with eidetic memory accumulate, and are able to index and retrieve without apparent problems, over normal life spans.)
So you think there's a limit to how much the brain can handle, a wall we might hit if we cured aging? Let's find out. Bring it on!