I've had a "neuro-pacemaker" for epilepsy for over a year:
https://www.neuropace.com/
In my case where I was having more than 90 seizures per-quarter (almost all during normal sleep) after tuning the device it has reduced to about 30 seizures per-quarter. As well as which, the seizures I do have are much less severe and leave me without post-seizure symptoms like very bad headaches. I also no longer experience enuresis. I'm 51 years old, had almost nightly enuresis as a child without seizures being diagnosed until I was 18 by which time and since I experienced enuresis about once per-month. I haven't experienced enuresis since the surgery. Yes, enuresis means wetting the bed in my case. Absolutely awful experience at 50. For me it's been a boon to have the implant and much more effective than drugs have ever been.
I can also claim to truly be a robot because I have under-skin hexagonal screw-heads that are easily detected by touch.
You're missing the point. For one thing I'm not saying it's good or wise, I'm only saying that "we would have developed tech to have radio broadcast in non interfering ways" is not invalid physics and was not at least when VHF/FM broadcast stations appeared. The mistaken assumption about "non-interfering ways" was that some kind of prevention of interference would have been invented for multiple stations operating on the same channel both in-range of a single receiver. Prevention of interference is also possible if stations can be kept on dedicated channels such that none do interfere with each other and that's been easy to implement for decades.
It's also NOT self-registration and I wasn't suggesting NO-registration. In fact I was suggesting forced registration of transmitter availability by restricting retail sales of receivers, i.e. broadcasters would comply with a limited set of rules to be compliant with available receivers but otherwise could do what they wanted. The "registration" I suggested doesn't require any part of the broadcaster's identity to be provided. It can be as little as a 5 to 10s "jingle" style audio content at 5kHz mono that identifies the station's broadcast intentions and what channel it plans to operate on. For example, in the following quote apply a music background with the words before the colon sung by a set of three women in harmony and after the colon spoken by a deep voice male "Radio murder : The station with 24 hour live killings on-air", It's not necessary to have the frequency stated in the "jingle", it can be handled easily with a sub-audible tone set that identifies all the known channels and a single one used at station registration and listener channel selection to identify what frequency the station is or will be on. With enough channels then the gang idea fails because the band is large enough to permit listening to something else. The registration is limited to on-air availability of any station and channels become free as stations go off air, i.e. it's not "registration" in the same sense as is currently used.
That's not without restrictions (there's a limit to geographic station density) but "non-interfering ways" doesn't have to imply stations avoid interference while being on the same or overlapping channels, it can also mean stations are guided automatically into idle channels in a way that avoids interference.
Your mistake is assuming that the entire implementation of broadcast radio "bands" would be no different from the implementation of the present AM and FM broadcast bands under the OP's suggestion. There is NO invalid physics in the OP's suggestion, I have been able to do most of what's needed on my ham rigs for decades. It would actually require very little difference to the model of the current bands themselves to implement what the OP is talking about. For example, in the USA if in the 1960's (or whenever VHF/FM stations appeared) the FCC had decided to permit VHF/FM broadcast but didn't want to have any meaningful regulation of broadcast stations it could have worked with the departments that regulate cars and retail purchases so that the only legal receivers that could be found and purchased by "listeners" in the USA had a simple extra feature then the OP's suggestion is easily implemented. All of the broadcast stations (regardless of funding size) would implement stations that were compatible with in-use receivers. So, if receivers operated by "finding" a station by allowing the listener to hear a list of station info currently on-air via a single frequency area registration service (provided as cheaply as possible to the FCC and at no cost to broadcasters and listeners) then the receiver switches to the current on-air broadcast frequency for the station selected by the listener. If that existed then all stations would implement transmitters that would contact the local "registration" stations, register themselves and either be directed to or indicate the transmitter frequency they planned to operate on and begin their transmissions. The registration doesn't have to require any rules (other than compliance with other national laws, i.e. stations that broadcast murders would only be allowed to do so as acts or their output could be used against their operators in court). Back in 1960 (or when VHF/FM was introduced), the registration station might allow 5 to 10s of "station jingle" at 5kHz mono to be provided by the broadcast station and that would be assembled into the station list the listeners would receive via audio recording at the registration station (originally on tape). All directions to actual broadcast channels could be done using something as simple as a sub-audible frequency tone-code overlayed on each "jingle" in the list. Some scanning of the band for what can be received currently allows channels to be "released" automatically at the registration station. The total bandwidth of the registration station would have to exceed 5kHz and there might need to be multiple registration channels to avoid interference but otherwise the technology for all of this was available when VHF/FM broadcast was introduced and it leaves a large part of the band for deployment at random when stations want to go on-air. We still haven't specified any modern style (digital data) coding but it could all be upgraded to digital station registration and selection in the 1990's or later without damaging existing receivers.
It isn't necessary to get around the laws of physics. In a world with no regulation of useful radio waves live VHF and modulation schemes that permit about 20kHz of stereo music we would have cheaply developed something like an on-air registration service on a fixed frequency (or that was easy to find on-air) that allows random stations to launch their transmitter, register it with some info for receivers and operate on a quiet frequency in the band. Then end-users would start a receiver that looked at the registration service for something interesting to listen to and tune to it's registered frequency. i.e. What the OP suggested.
As most posters note, there is never a direction from which the earth isn't transiting the sun. Therefore, a single location on the surface of earth for a laser other than perhaps either pole is not a practical implementation anyway since it will be on the sun facing side of earth about half the day. It will not be able to mask the transit taking place while it is on the daytime side of earth. You couldn't fire 30MW visible light lasers into the sky from earth without the massive objection of at least aviation. The "visible" light from the sun isn't a flat spectrum anyway, any laser system that didn't replicate the spectrum of the solar radiation (visible and invisible) wouldn't be a mask to anyone capable of observing the transit in the first place. Then, so what! There's nothing special about the earth transit of the sun that says to any aliens "here be a food or war source". Each of the other planets in the solar system is also at any instant in transit of the same sun when observed from some direction. You might be able to say because of the spectrum filtering what the atmosphere of a transiting planet is made of but which scientists assume there's anything special about an atmosphere of nitrogen with a bit of oxygen to aliens? Which scientists assume that all aliens are of a similar composition to humans (by saying that masking ourselves from aliens at all only requires masking the solar transit of earth within the solar system while there is continual RF energy from earth radio stations anyway). Any aliens capable of coming over from their planet to the solar system for a fight/feed (i.e. the definition of what we want to mask ourselves from) are, given our current capabilities of carrying out war in space, just as likely to hook (insert your choice of solar system planet) to a tow hook and take it back to their own home as a source of raw materials leaving us bewildered at a vanishing planet while they laugh at the ease of the exercise. Nope, it was a decent and entertaining April Fool joke by Kipping and Teachey from Columbia University but no more.
In many countries firing lasers in any format of away from the surface of earth would require co-ordination with the national aviation administration agency. Clearly flying aircraft through the beam of a 30MW visible light laser would be a lot worse than having a laserpointer aimed at them by kids. I heard this all day on April 1st on NPR and the BBC. Although the BBC news site dates it March31st I doubt the story is anything more than an April Fool joke by the original authors.
What's that current ad that starts with the question: "Constipated?" I can't wait until some show has as a placement the product that's for. Plus, the ad I'm thinking of shows a handful of features it has so if it became the Hawaii Five O season laxative some year they could show a different feature in different episodes just like they do with the cars. Same goes for a show that has a season ED medicine some year. That would be great if they also showed the side-effects as well and there was the character with the four-hour-boner worked into the plot who did the right thing and consulted his doctor.
Consensus is used to squelch people from questioning the consensus.
...in the case of religion perhaps. Science on the other hand plainly advances because it has advanced, often even in the presence of a single soul with an alternative opinion (not consensus plainly). Some of the greatest rewards in science appear to be seeking out individuals like that especially (aiming at creating new consensus from individuals with the courage to explore). IOW, if there is any consensus in science then you are only describing a limited set of cases of consensus and not all cases having it, particularly not science it seems.
But that hasn't yet stopped someone who feels the evidence has problems from expanding the science in some way and changing the direction. The governments of most of us have little interest in not expanding science honestly, the same goes for other funders of research. The US government can't wait for it's own discovery of interstellar transport at little cost. It doesn't care what science is done honestly. The ones who have cheated have been individual scientists who found a way to obtain income for nothing. Those cases that have been reported where people have been found lying for funding have resulted in very severe outcomes for the liar. Whatever there is in the way of consensus in sciences doesn't undermine their honesty or progress. The group who do behave the way you describe are the chaplains. Let's say there is a god, the Christian faiths are finished exploring it because it is already all defined in full.
The prosthetic must have two selectable operations so that his run can be guaranteed to be so balanced and he also does well to ensure that he always launches the jump from the prosthetic. At the end of the day, if there has to be a new competitive division for those with a prosthetic then his most important goal is to avoid it being a lower athletic standard than the ones he divides from so good luck to him in trying to avoid it being called paralympics or equivalent.
...
American mass media and "journalism" is a vast miasma of bloated infomercial junk food weight loss car commercial erection drug propaganda aimed at conditioning whats left of the American Mind into dull and plodding consumerism and hopelessness....
That part is not fair. The other day when I got hooked on watching large building controlled explosion demolitions (implosions) were it not for a local Las Vegas TV station's news department's one hour coverage of it I would not have discovered the superb footage of the thirty second downing of the Alladin with the inclusion of sacrificial cameras. I love you balcony cam!
Indeed, most drawings I can think of can be reproduced by moving the drawing device using only two directional references regardless of how thick the material placed on the paper is. Therefore, the drawing is two dimensional in a real sense even though it is simultaneously three dimensional in terms of deposit of crayon, pencil, chalk, ink, etc.
Correction: I used transistor in places I meant to use atom:
None of the materials the transistor is made of is a few atoms thick. Read the story more carefully. There was never a claim that the transistor was 2D, only that each of the materials the transistor used multiple layers of was 2D. Well, even an atom is thick but it is also true that in each layer of the materials used in the transistor the position of any atom with respect to any other atom only requires two dimensions to describe it (right a couple of atoms and forward a couple of atoms, no third direction required for each material used).
None of the materials the transistor is made of is a few atoms thick. Read the story more carefully. There was never a claim that the transistor was 2D, only that each of the materials the transistor used multiple layers of was 2D. Well, even an atom is thick but it is also true that in each layer of the materials used in the transistor the position of any transistor with respect to any other transistor only requires two dimensions to describe it (right a couple, forward a couple, no third direction).
I wondered about that one for a bit but no-one said the transistors were 2D, only that the materials the transistors were made were two dimensional. The transistors themselves consist of layers of these materials, each one atom thick giving the transistor itself three-dimensions: "First Transistors Made Entirely of 2-D Materials". Underscore materials not transistors. Every atom in each layer can be referenced by it's position relative to any other position in the layer using only two dimensions (left a couple, forward a couple but never up or down any atoms in that layer regardless of up or down being relevant in the multi-layer transistor itself). There are no transistors made of only one material so it was already implicit in the headline that the transistors had three dimensions due to the need to use multiple layers in each one.
Lots of mistakes there. In the experiment you are referring to, the whole thing was NOT "positioned under water". In fact, the mercury siphon and both beakers of mercury were positioned in a larger container exposed to the air. The siphon tube has an extra pipe exposing the top of the bend to the air as well. The outer container that contains the siphon is "slowly filled with water". Since the two beakers that make up the siphon containers both contain mercury the siphon tube is then filled with mercury from the lower beaker before the higher one because of the weight of the water appearing on the lower one first. The extra tube at the bend in the siphon prevents any compression of the air in it. With properly selected heights of the two beakers of mercury the siphon pipe can fill from the lower one first, over the bend and into the higher one and the mercury will flow "upwards" due to the weight of the water only being present on the lower mercury. However, as soon as the weight of the water is present over both containers of mercury then the flow will reverse and go "downhill".
Well, I stand by the fact that the ones you refer to didn't work in the MH370 case and a new generation of doppler science on Inmarsat data was required instead to reach an accepted location of the crash as being a more likely indicator that ELTs of that kind are not deployed on the MH370 airframe rather than a very good reason for passenger/crew families to sue Boeing and/or Honeywell. I never said such devices don't exist, the answer to your question "Isn't there supposed to be several salt-water activated beacons that are automatically released upon a crash?" is no. Quoting wikipedia for example:
"Most general aviation aircraft in the U.S. are required to carry an ELT, depending upon the type or location of operation, while scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers are not. However, in commercial aircraft, a cockpit voice recorder or flight data recorder must contain an Underwater locator beacon."
As far as I know from two respected broadcast news sources' stories (quoting government search organizations among sources) that automatic water activated ultrasound locators were being sought with urgency in the days following the MH370 crash due to their limited power life but that the problem was it was not worth searching other than in the region of the locator due to the low output power of the locator. A functioning floating VHF/UHF or even HF ELT would have been located with precision by satellite within no more than hours of the crash with half the world's ham radio operators contributing references from ground as well. It would not have been at the location of the crash when discovered if it was floating and would not have stayed where it was when located anyway. An underwater RF transmitter of the same type at the depth of ocean floor in this case would not have moved but would not be receivable other than in a small region around the crash, which is the reason ultrasonic ones are used underwater and why submarine external communications systems are not HF, VHF or UHF. I'm listening to a BBC World Service story right now where they are saying the new "rough" crash site is the size of Portugal and there's no knowledge of whether the "ultrasound" locator being sought is on a flat surface or down a sea-floor canyon.
I also heard a magazine style story using the Air France 447 crash as a frequent example and quoting US government aviation safety sources describing an intended design goal of ultrasound locators and the recorders themselves being to not leave the scene of the crash and that anything of interest leaving that location would be sought after based on best available knowledge of forces capable of moving them (tides for example). The reverse being intended if the debris is found away from the crash site. A floating radio ELT could not serve the same purpose and any on-board that did float could not be expected to go in the same direction as all survivors anyway so would have a lower than 100% effectiveness anyway. The only news discussion I've heard of ELT type locators is of the form where the reporter makes scathing comments about how outdated the system being sought is and how we must be able to do better with satellites and GPS for example and the interviewee points out that's not the problem, deploying such systems on all the world's existing civil aircraft makes it prohibitive to be considered an official safety system. In that case, I assume the Honeywell ELT system used by Boeing, for example, is a commercial locator that no airlines are required to deploy but can choose to buy.
The answer to your question was "no" with regard to MH370 and you've done nothing to show otherwise and quoted no sources of your own in response to several of mine. There were no RF ELT's on-board or required to be on-board MH370 and they would only be partially effective anyway. It contains one or two ultrasonic locators designed to have stayed at the crash site with the flight recorders and they cannot be discovered outside of a limited distance from them hence the need to know the crash site.
NPR and the BBC in the first week following the disappearance but here's some BBC magazining of it:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Besides, plainly if you were correct they would have to have completely failed for the search to have taken three weeks. Also, if they were "released" on a salt-water crash then if they floated they would not remain at the location of the crash even though the recorders would unless the beacons didn't float and if they didn't float they would be exactly what I described anyway.
As far as I understand it, no. As I understand it there is a similar mechanism for activating very low signal strength ultrasound devices on the recorders that are for precision location within a rough location of a final site. IOW, you need the rough location before you stand a chance of finding them. They are also limited life (approximately 30 days if I remember it).
RTFA. The latest claim is not that the apparent debris indicates anything at all. Instead, Inmarsat computed what they believe must be the rough final location from radio data regardless of the apparent debris and it predicts an inevitable crash in a location that would leave the apparent debris being observed now as a hardly surprising status.
Somewhere there was a comment about being addicted to food. As in, you can't be. Well, yes, you can, in the pure dependence meaning of the term, too. If you don't eat food you suffer extreme withdrawal symptoms. Death can be a final symptom. And you can be addicted to foods in the common language meaning of addiction. Mmmm, I love mint chocolate chip ice cream. I have a strong urge to eat it...
In which case water is even more addictive than even food (the mean number of person-days water is taken is bound to be higher than the mean number of person-days food is taken). Better still, food is not only addictive, it is the most overdosed on substance in the world with food pusher's selling as much as multiple daily overdoses to anyone who can afford a fix.
I suspect the major reason for the Windows behavior is that the driver gets polled for the version it was intended for at install or load time and Windows says no to further operation if it is less than some value. As a result, modifying the driver to do no more than say it is for a higher version is enough for it to suddenly work with what is really unmodified code. Perhaps with minor changes but we're not talking about the way it can be in linux where the whole interface to the class of hardware is changed enough that the driver has to have some re-write (not a massive amount usually). But then, which one is the friendlier OS behavior? Saying no to a perhaps working driver in order to promote development claiming to support your shiny new OS version or saying to driver vendors that the OS has changed and modified drivers are needed to support these named changes? Which you are welcome to grep the kernel for all instances of and fix yourself if you please. It might be promoted as a problem on linux but I think I agree, the linux behavior is much friendlier to developers and users.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had a "neuro-pacemaker" for epilepsy for over a year: https://www.neuropace.com/ In my case where I was having more than 90 seizures per-quarter (almost all during normal sleep) after tuning the device it has reduced to about 30 seizures per-quarter. As well as which, the seizures I do have are much less severe and leave me without post-seizure symptoms like very bad headaches. I also no longer experience enuresis. I'm 51 years old, had almost nightly enuresis as a child without seizures being diagnosed until I was 18 by which time and since I experienced enuresis about once per-month. I haven't experienced enuresis since the surgery. Yes, enuresis means wetting the bed in my case. Absolutely awful experience at 50. For me it's been a boon to have the implant and much more effective than drugs have ever been. I can also claim to truly be a robot because I have under-skin hexagonal screw-heads that are easily detected by touch.
You're missing the point. For one thing I'm not saying it's good or wise, I'm only saying that "we would have developed tech to have radio broadcast in non interfering ways" is not invalid physics and was not at least when VHF/FM broadcast stations appeared. The mistaken assumption about "non-interfering ways" was that some kind of prevention of interference would have been invented for multiple stations operating on the same channel both in-range of a single receiver. Prevention of interference is also possible if stations can be kept on dedicated channels such that none do interfere with each other and that's been easy to implement for decades. It's also NOT self-registration and I wasn't suggesting NO-registration. In fact I was suggesting forced registration of transmitter availability by restricting retail sales of receivers, i.e. broadcasters would comply with a limited set of rules to be compliant with available receivers but otherwise could do what they wanted. The "registration" I suggested doesn't require any part of the broadcaster's identity to be provided. It can be as little as a 5 to 10s "jingle" style audio content at 5kHz mono that identifies the station's broadcast intentions and what channel it plans to operate on. For example, in the following quote apply a music background with the words before the colon sung by a set of three women in harmony and after the colon spoken by a deep voice male "Radio murder : The station with 24 hour live killings on-air", It's not necessary to have the frequency stated in the "jingle", it can be handled easily with a sub-audible tone set that identifies all the known channels and a single one used at station registration and listener channel selection to identify what frequency the station is or will be on. With enough channels then the gang idea fails because the band is large enough to permit listening to something else. The registration is limited to on-air availability of any station and channels become free as stations go off air, i.e. it's not "registration" in the same sense as is currently used.
That's not without restrictions (there's a limit to geographic station density) but "non-interfering ways" doesn't have to imply stations avoid interference while being on the same or overlapping channels, it can also mean stations are guided automatically into idle channels in a way that avoids interference.
Your mistake is assuming that the entire implementation of broadcast radio "bands" would be no different from the implementation of the present AM and FM broadcast bands under the OP's suggestion. There is NO invalid physics in the OP's suggestion, I have been able to do most of what's needed on my ham rigs for decades. It would actually require very little difference to the model of the current bands themselves to implement what the OP is talking about. For example, in the USA if in the 1960's (or whenever VHF/FM stations appeared) the FCC had decided to permit VHF/FM broadcast but didn't want to have any meaningful regulation of broadcast stations it could have worked with the departments that regulate cars and retail purchases so that the only legal receivers that could be found and purchased by "listeners" in the USA had a simple extra feature then the OP's suggestion is easily implemented. All of the broadcast stations (regardless of funding size) would implement stations that were compatible with in-use receivers. So, if receivers operated by "finding" a station by allowing the listener to hear a list of station info currently on-air via a single frequency area registration service (provided as cheaply as possible to the FCC and at no cost to broadcasters and listeners) then the receiver switches to the current on-air broadcast frequency for the station selected by the listener. If that existed then all stations would implement transmitters that would contact the local "registration" stations, register themselves and either be directed to or indicate the transmitter frequency they planned to operate on and begin their transmissions. The registration doesn't have to require any rules (other than compliance with other national laws, i.e. stations that broadcast murders would only be allowed to do so as acts or their output could be used against their operators in court). Back in 1960 (or when VHF/FM was introduced), the registration station might allow 5 to 10s of "station jingle" at 5kHz mono to be provided by the broadcast station and that would be assembled into the station list the listeners would receive via audio recording at the registration station (originally on tape). All directions to actual broadcast channels could be done using something as simple as a sub-audible frequency tone-code overlayed on each "jingle" in the list. Some scanning of the band for what can be received currently allows channels to be "released" automatically at the registration station. The total bandwidth of the registration station would have to exceed 5kHz and there might need to be multiple registration channels to avoid interference but otherwise the technology for all of this was available when VHF/FM broadcast was introduced and it leaves a large part of the band for deployment at random when stations want to go on-air. We still haven't specified any modern style (digital data) coding but it could all be upgraded to digital station registration and selection in the 1990's or later without damaging existing receivers.
It isn't necessary to get around the laws of physics. In a world with no regulation of useful radio waves live VHF and modulation schemes that permit about 20kHz of stereo music we would have cheaply developed something like an on-air registration service on a fixed frequency (or that was easy to find on-air) that allows random stations to launch their transmitter, register it with some info for receivers and operate on a quiet frequency in the band. Then end-users would start a receiver that looked at the registration service for something interesting to listen to and tune to it's registered frequency. i.e. What the OP suggested.
As most posters note, there is never a direction from which the earth isn't transiting the sun. Therefore, a single location on the surface of earth for a laser other than perhaps either pole is not a practical implementation anyway since it will be on the sun facing side of earth about half the day. It will not be able to mask the transit taking place while it is on the daytime side of earth. You couldn't fire 30MW visible light lasers into the sky from earth without the massive objection of at least aviation. The "visible" light from the sun isn't a flat spectrum anyway, any laser system that didn't replicate the spectrum of the solar radiation (visible and invisible) wouldn't be a mask to anyone capable of observing the transit in the first place. Then, so what! There's nothing special about the earth transit of the sun that says to any aliens "here be a food or war source". Each of the other planets in the solar system is also at any instant in transit of the same sun when observed from some direction. You might be able to say because of the spectrum filtering what the atmosphere of a transiting planet is made of but which scientists assume there's anything special about an atmosphere of nitrogen with a bit of oxygen to aliens? Which scientists assume that all aliens are of a similar composition to humans (by saying that masking ourselves from aliens at all only requires masking the solar transit of earth within the solar system while there is continual RF energy from earth radio stations anyway). Any aliens capable of coming over from their planet to the solar system for a fight/feed (i.e. the definition of what we want to mask ourselves from) are, given our current capabilities of carrying out war in space, just as likely to hook (insert your choice of solar system planet) to a tow hook and take it back to their own home as a source of raw materials leaving us bewildered at a vanishing planet while they laugh at the ease of the exercise. Nope, it was a decent and entertaining April Fool joke by Kipping and Teachey from Columbia University but no more.
In many countries firing lasers in any format of away from the surface of earth would require co-ordination with the national aviation administration agency. Clearly flying aircraft through the beam of a 30MW visible light laser would be a lot worse than having a laserpointer aimed at them by kids. I heard this all day on April 1st on NPR and the BBC. Although the BBC news site dates it March31st I doubt the story is anything more than an April Fool joke by the original authors.
There is never no direction from which the earth is not currently transiting the sun. April Fool.
What's that current ad that starts with the question: "Constipated?" I can't wait until some show has as a placement the product that's for. Plus, the ad I'm thinking of shows a handful of features it has so if it became the Hawaii Five O season laxative some year they could show a different feature in different episodes just like they do with the cars. Same goes for a show that has a season ED medicine some year. That would be great if they also showed the side-effects as well and there was the character with the four-hour-boner worked into the plot who did the right thing and consulted his doctor.
Consensus is used to squelch people from questioning the consensus.
...in the case of religion perhaps. Science on the other hand plainly advances because it has advanced, often even in the presence of a single soul with an alternative opinion (not consensus plainly). Some of the greatest rewards in science appear to be seeking out individuals like that especially (aiming at creating new consensus from individuals with the courage to explore). IOW, if there is any consensus in science then you are only describing a limited set of cases of consensus and not all cases having it, particularly not science it seems.
But that hasn't yet stopped someone who feels the evidence has problems from expanding the science in some way and changing the direction. The governments of most of us have little interest in not expanding science honestly, the same goes for other funders of research. The US government can't wait for it's own discovery of interstellar transport at little cost. It doesn't care what science is done honestly. The ones who have cheated have been individual scientists who found a way to obtain income for nothing. Those cases that have been reported where people have been found lying for funding have resulted in very severe outcomes for the liar. Whatever there is in the way of consensus in sciences doesn't undermine their honesty or progress. The group who do behave the way you describe are the chaplains. Let's say there is a god, the Christian faiths are finished exploring it because it is already all defined in full.
The prosthetic must have two selectable operations so that his run can be guaranteed to be so balanced and he also does well to ensure that he always launches the jump from the prosthetic. At the end of the day, if there has to be a new competitive division for those with a prosthetic then his most important goal is to avoid it being a lower athletic standard than the ones he divides from so good luck to him in trying to avoid it being called paralympics or equivalent.
Rehm might go faster than naturally legged racers in the 100m circle.
... American mass media and "journalism" is a vast miasma of bloated infomercial junk food weight loss car commercial erection drug propaganda aimed at conditioning whats left of the American Mind into dull and plodding consumerism and hopelessness. ...
That part is not fair. The other day when I got hooked on watching large building controlled explosion demolitions (implosions) were it not for a local Las Vegas TV station's news department's one hour coverage of it I would not have discovered the superb footage of the thirty second downing of the Alladin with the inclusion of sacrificial cameras. I love you balcony cam!
Indeed, most drawings I can think of can be reproduced by moving the drawing device using only two directional references regardless of how thick the material placed on the paper is. Therefore, the drawing is two dimensional in a real sense even though it is simultaneously three dimensional in terms of deposit of crayon, pencil, chalk, ink, etc.
Correction: I used transistor in places I meant to use atom: None of the materials the transistor is made of is a few atoms thick. Read the story more carefully. There was never a claim that the transistor was 2D, only that each of the materials the transistor used multiple layers of was 2D. Well, even an atom is thick but it is also true that in each layer of the materials used in the transistor the position of any atom with respect to any other atom only requires two dimensions to describe it (right a couple of atoms and forward a couple of atoms, no third direction required for each material used).
None of the materials the transistor is made of is a few atoms thick. Read the story more carefully. There was never a claim that the transistor was 2D, only that each of the materials the transistor used multiple layers of was 2D. Well, even an atom is thick but it is also true that in each layer of the materials used in the transistor the position of any transistor with respect to any other transistor only requires two dimensions to describe it (right a couple, forward a couple, no third direction).
I wondered about that one for a bit but no-one said the transistors were 2D, only that the materials the transistors were made were two dimensional. The transistors themselves consist of layers of these materials, each one atom thick giving the transistor itself three-dimensions: "First Transistors Made Entirely of 2-D Materials". Underscore materials not transistors. Every atom in each layer can be referenced by it's position relative to any other position in the layer using only two dimensions (left a couple, forward a couple but never up or down any atoms in that layer regardless of up or down being relevant in the multi-layer transistor itself). There are no transistors made of only one material so it was already implicit in the headline that the transistors had three dimensions due to the need to use multiple layers in each one.
Lots of mistakes there. In the experiment you are referring to, the whole thing was NOT "positioned under water". In fact, the mercury siphon and both beakers of mercury were positioned in a larger container exposed to the air. The siphon tube has an extra pipe exposing the top of the bend to the air as well. The outer container that contains the siphon is "slowly filled with water". Since the two beakers that make up the siphon containers both contain mercury the siphon tube is then filled with mercury from the lower beaker before the higher one because of the weight of the water appearing on the lower one first. The extra tube at the bend in the siphon prevents any compression of the air in it. With properly selected heights of the two beakers of mercury the siphon pipe can fill from the lower one first, over the bend and into the higher one and the mercury will flow "upwards" due to the weight of the water only being present on the lower mercury. However, as soon as the weight of the water is present over both containers of mercury then the flow will reverse and go "downhill".
Well, I stand by the fact that the ones you refer to didn't work in the MH370 case and a new generation of doppler science on Inmarsat data was required instead to reach an accepted location of the crash as being a more likely indicator that ELTs of that kind are not deployed on the MH370 airframe rather than a very good reason for passenger/crew families to sue Boeing and/or Honeywell. I never said such devices don't exist, the answer to your question "Isn't there supposed to be several salt-water activated beacons that are automatically released upon a crash?" is no. Quoting wikipedia for example:
"Most general aviation aircraft in the U.S. are required to carry an ELT, depending upon the type or location of operation, while scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers are not. However, in commercial aircraft, a cockpit voice recorder or flight data recorder must contain an Underwater locator beacon."
As far as I know from two respected broadcast news sources' stories (quoting government search organizations among sources) that automatic water activated ultrasound locators were being sought with urgency in the days following the MH370 crash due to their limited power life but that the problem was it was not worth searching other than in the region of the locator due to the low output power of the locator. A functioning floating VHF/UHF or even HF ELT would have been located with precision by satellite within no more than hours of the crash with half the world's ham radio operators contributing references from ground as well. It would not have been at the location of the crash when discovered if it was floating and would not have stayed where it was when located anyway. An underwater RF transmitter of the same type at the depth of ocean floor in this case would not have moved but would not be receivable other than in a small region around the crash, which is the reason ultrasonic ones are used underwater and why submarine external communications systems are not HF, VHF or UHF. I'm listening to a BBC World Service story right now where they are saying the new "rough" crash site is the size of Portugal and there's no knowledge of whether the "ultrasound" locator being sought is on a flat surface or down a sea-floor canyon.
I also heard a magazine style story using the Air France 447 crash as a frequent example and quoting US government aviation safety sources describing an intended design goal of ultrasound locators and the recorders themselves being to not leave the scene of the crash and that anything of interest leaving that location would be sought after based on best available knowledge of forces capable of moving them (tides for example). The reverse being intended if the debris is found away from the crash site. A floating radio ELT could not serve the same purpose and any on-board that did float could not be expected to go in the same direction as all survivors anyway so would have a lower than 100% effectiveness anyway. The only news discussion I've heard of ELT type locators is of the form where the reporter makes scathing comments about how outdated the system being sought is and how we must be able to do better with satellites and GPS for example and the interviewee points out that's not the problem, deploying such systems on all the world's existing civil aircraft makes it prohibitive to be considered an official safety system. In that case, I assume the Honeywell ELT system used by Boeing, for example, is a commercial locator that no airlines are required to deploy but can choose to buy.
The answer to your question was "no" with regard to MH370 and you've done nothing to show otherwise and quoted no sources of your own in response to several of mine. There were no RF ELT's on-board or required to be on-board MH370 and they would only be partially effective anyway. It contains one or two ultrasonic locators designed to have stayed at the crash site with the flight recorders and they cannot be discovered outside of a limited distance from them hence the need to know the crash site.
NPR and the BBC in the first week following the disappearance but here's some BBC magazining of it: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... Besides, plainly if you were correct they would have to have completely failed for the search to have taken three weeks. Also, if they were "released" on a salt-water crash then if they floated they would not remain at the location of the crash even though the recorders would unless the beacons didn't float and if they didn't float they would be exactly what I described anyway.
As far as I understand it, no. As I understand it there is a similar mechanism for activating very low signal strength ultrasound devices on the recorders that are for precision location within a rough location of a final site. IOW, you need the rough location before you stand a chance of finding them. They are also limited life (approximately 30 days if I remember it).
RTFA. The latest claim is not that the apparent debris indicates anything at all. Instead, Inmarsat computed what they believe must be the rough final location from radio data regardless of the apparent debris and it predicts an inevitable crash in a location that would leave the apparent debris being observed now as a hardly surprising status.
Somewhere there was a comment about being addicted to food. As in, you can't be. Well, yes, you can, in the pure dependence meaning of the term, too. If you don't eat food you suffer extreme withdrawal symptoms. Death can be a final symptom. And you can be addicted to foods in the common language meaning of addiction. Mmmm, I love mint chocolate chip ice cream. I have a strong urge to eat it...
In which case water is even more addictive than even food (the mean number of person-days water is taken is bound to be higher than the mean number of person-days food is taken). Better still, food is not only addictive, it is the most overdosed on substance in the world with food pusher's selling as much as multiple daily overdoses to anyone who can afford a fix.
I suspect the major reason for the Windows behavior is that the driver gets polled for the version it was intended for at install or load time and Windows says no to further operation if it is less than some value. As a result, modifying the driver to do no more than say it is for a higher version is enough for it to suddenly work with what is really unmodified code. Perhaps with minor changes but we're not talking about the way it can be in linux where the whole interface to the class of hardware is changed enough that the driver has to have some re-write (not a massive amount usually). But then, which one is the friendlier OS behavior? Saying no to a perhaps working driver in order to promote development claiming to support your shiny new OS version or saying to driver vendors that the OS has changed and modified drivers are needed to support these named changes? Which you are welcome to grep the kernel for all instances of and fix yourself if you please. It might be promoted as a problem on linux but I think I agree, the linux behavior is much friendlier to developers and users.