Does anybody who creates the tags RTFA? (OK, I'm not new here. That's meant to be a rhetorical question.) I don't see how this is biotech. The stuff is made out of sequential layers of clay and PVA. These layers are deposited mechanically from solution. It's not like they have genetically engineered critters secreting some new cool substance. Yes, the researchers do compare the structure to mother of pearl, but other than a structural simularity, that's all there is.
I'll be the first to admit that what I wrote was a bit glib. To me, the big problem with the Copenhagen approach lies in the violation of general relativity as posed by the EPR paradox and the whole "spooky action at a distance" thing. This tells me that we need to come up with a theory that will unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. Many smart people have worked on this for the past 80 years or so and we still don't have a solution.
If we say that existance is composed of a series of all possible outcomes of individual quantum occurances, and our perception of this universe is based on a random walk through this highly multidimensional space of possibilities, we quickly find ourselves dealing with some big ontological problems. For example: Do we actually have any control over this random walk? Does free will really exist or is it just an illusion? I could go on, but it seems like the multiple worlds approach just opens a really big can of worms. Furthermore, I don't really see how this solves the EPR paradox or unifies quantum mechanics with general relativity. Unless the multiple universe picture solves those problems, I would prefer avoid mixing science with philosophy (at least at that level), for pretty much the same reasons that keep me from mixing science and religion. If the multiple universe picture were to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, then we really would be looking at "one of the most important developments in the history of science."
So they say they have a mathematical description of the parallel universe theory. One can construct a mathematical model that describes the geocentric solar system perfectly well, but the the heliocentric version is much simpler.
No. You don't need to go that far. The very fact that you asked that question is enough for a one-way ticket to Gitmo. Rot in hell, you fucking terrorist!
It's not just e-mail (which should be an easy fix as many have pointed out). The iPhone will come with a web browser. People want to access the intranet with their phone, only to discover that nothing works because their corporate IT drones developed everything with active-x or.net, locking everyone into IE 6 or later and a Windows box.
You forgot about the long-standing Replubican strategy to buy votes with tax cuts. With a never-ending structural deficit, they can "starve the beast" and put an end to those welfare queen scientists living large on the government dime.
It seems that the mass standard is still based on an aritfact. The only difference between this artifact and the existing lump of metal is that we have a better receipie to reproduce the artifact. In principle, if we know the dimensions of the existing Pt-IR standard, and the ratio of the elements and isotopes, we could do a pretty good job of recreating the lump of metal. Yes, we can do a better job of reproducing the Si artifact, but I just can't see manufacturing a macroscopic artifact with exactly N atoms of Si.
You don't need high pressure confinement if the methane is cold. At -161.6 C the vapor pressure is 1 atmosphere and pressure confinement is not an issue until the spacecraft is at high altitude. Since the TFA already states that the spacecraft will use liquid oxygen, which boils at -182.96 C at 1 atm, we can assume that they are planning to use cryogenic fuel tanks.
The air extraction device, in which sorbents capture carbon dioxide molecules from free-flowing air and release those molecules as a pure stream of carbon dioxide for sequestration
I assume that this is more energy efficient than the usual refrigeration based methods for generating pure CO2. This is a good thing. However, they don't say what they're going to do with the CO2 once they purify it. If you can't answer that question, you haven't solved the sequesteration problem.
The reliance on web apps is the key. Of course, these web apps won't work if they are IE only and require Active-X. When the CEO finally realizes that his intranet is suffering from MS lock-in, will things actually change?
Utility companies need to have staffing for 3 shifts and pay overtime when they call extra people in for emergencies. IT techs just suck it up. Guess who's unionized?
So what I'm hoping is that Microsoft will see fit to support SVG natively in IE. I strongly suspect that pigs will fly out of my ass before MS supports SVG in anything. The lack of any vector graphics standards other than EMF in MS products is a key to their vendor lock-in strategy. As an example, the company that I work for needs to supply reports and documents to the federal government for various contracts. Our customers expect Word and PowerPoint documents. Much of our data is best represented in vector graphic format. The only choice is EMF.
Oh, and one more thing...there is no "one more thing" if you need to put EMF files in Word and PowerPoint documents. While you can get MS Office for the Mac, the support for EMF graphics sucks so badly that it might as well not exist. So, if you want to prepare technical documents with vector graphics for clients who insist on MS Office compatibility, you're stuck with a Windows box. Now, do you think that there is any chance that this is not intentional?
Slashdot Mirror
Does anybody who creates the tags RTFA? (OK, I'm not new here. That's meant to be a rhetorical question.) I don't see how this is biotech. The stuff is made out of sequential layers of clay and PVA. These layers are deposited mechanically from solution. It's not like they have genetically engineered critters secreting some new cool substance. Yes, the researchers do compare the structure to mother of pearl, but other than a structural simularity, that's all there is.
What are the odds that someone will show up in a troll costume, shout obscenities at people and otherwise be a pain in the ass?
I'll be the first to admit that what I wrote was a bit glib. To me, the big problem with the Copenhagen approach lies in the violation of general relativity as posed by the EPR paradox and the whole "spooky action at a distance" thing. This tells me that we need to come up with a theory that will unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. Many smart people have worked on this for the past 80 years or so and we still don't have a solution. If we say that existance is composed of a series of all possible outcomes of individual quantum occurances, and our perception of this universe is based on a random walk through this highly multidimensional space of possibilities, we quickly find ourselves dealing with some big ontological problems. For example: Do we actually have any control over this random walk? Does free will really exist or is it just an illusion? I could go on, but it seems like the multiple worlds approach just opens a really big can of worms. Furthermore, I don't really see how this solves the EPR paradox or unifies quantum mechanics with general relativity. Unless the multiple universe picture solves those problems, I would prefer avoid mixing science with philosophy (at least at that level), for pretty much the same reasons that keep me from mixing science and religion. If the multiple universe picture were to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity, then we really would be looking at "one of the most important developments in the history of science."
So they say they have a mathematical description of the parallel universe theory. One can construct a mathematical model that describes the geocentric solar system perfectly well, but the the heliocentric version is much simpler.
So, which is simpler?
(1) Shit happens.
(2) Shit happens. Parallel universes are created.
Typographers have used ligatures for ages. Now we have a scientific explanation.
I think that this problem extends beyond the realm of software.
But is it backwards compatible with Web 1.0?
Some of us Luddites are a bit slow to upgrade.
No. You don't need to go that far. The very fact that you asked that question is enough for a one-way ticket to Gitmo. Rot in hell, you fucking terrorist!
Pointy-Haired CIO
Sashimi
It's not just e-mail (which should be an easy fix as many have pointed out). The iPhone will come with a web browser. People want to access the intranet with their phone, only to discover that nothing works because their corporate IT drones developed everything with active-x or .net, locking everyone into IE 6 or later and a Windows box.
You forgot about the long-standing Replubican strategy to buy votes with tax cuts. With a never-ending structural deficit, they can "starve the beast" and put an end to those welfare queen scientists living large on the government dime.
It seems that the mass standard is still based on an aritfact. The only difference between this artifact and the existing lump of metal is that we have a better receipie to reproduce the artifact. In principle, if we know the dimensions of the existing Pt-IR standard, and the ratio of the elements and isotopes, we could do a pretty good job of recreating the lump of metal. Yes, we can do a better job of reproducing the Si artifact, but I just can't see manufacturing a macroscopic artifact with exactly N atoms of Si.
That doesn't sound safe to me. How many Gs does the vomit comit pull when it comes out of it's dive?
You don't need high pressure confinement if the methane is cold. At -161.6 C the vapor pressure is 1 atmosphere and pressure confinement is not an issue until the spacecraft is at high altitude. Since the TFA already states that the spacecraft will use liquid oxygen, which boils at -182.96 C at 1 atm, we can assume that they are planning to use cryogenic fuel tanks.
Nothing's more '80s than Tess Turbo
Sorry, somebody posted this two minutes beore you did. You will now get modded to -1 for redundancy. Kiss your karma goodbye.
Only if he patents his legal strategy.
I assume that this is more energy efficient than the usual refrigeration based methods for generating pure CO2. This is a good thing. However, they don't say what they're going to do with the CO2 once they purify it. If you can't answer that question, you haven't solved the sequesteration problem.
The reliance on web apps is the key. Of course, these web apps won't work if they are IE only and require Active-X. When the CEO finally realizes that his intranet is suffering from MS lock-in, will things actually change?
Utility companies need to have staffing for 3 shifts and pay overtime when they call extra people in for emergencies. IT techs just suck it up. Guess who's unionized?
I'm sick of getting my butt kicked by teenage punks in Unreal Tournament.
Oh, and one more thing...there is no "one more thing" if you need to put EMF files in Word and PowerPoint documents. While you can get MS Office for the Mac, the support for EMF graphics sucks so badly that it might as well not exist. So, if you want to prepare technical documents with vector graphics for clients who insist on MS Office compatibility, you're stuck with a Windows box. Now, do you think that there is any chance that this is not intentional?
Fucking monopolists.
It sucks to be Dick.
But it can buy a trademark.