George Carillo was the first recipient. He was the first and worst of the 'frozen addicts' covered in J William Langston's "The Case of the Frozen Addicts". His and others' poisoning by MPTP contaminated home made fentanyl resulted in Parkinsonism, which was partially reversed by fetal neural cell grafting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPTP
Their misfortune and subsequent treatment contributed to our now extensive understanding of Parkinson's and of the dopamine system, understanding that contributed to the success of Drs Arvid Carlsson, Paul Greengard, and Eric R. Kandel, recipients of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology. It also contributed to the discovery of endogenous MPTP, and that its conversion to MPP+ in neural mitochondria could be blocked in a majority of cases by trimethylnaphthoquinone, an MAO inhibitor found in tobacco.
You can call it 'Fred and Barny' if you like, the owners are going to call it what they intend for it to be. As for the rationalizing rhapsody of contrast and comparison, forget it. No analogies suffice. There is nothing "like" the net.
"If you had the attention of an entire company...."
I'd tell them I have put together a collection of security/privacy related issues that may or may not relate to things at work but definitely relate to their personal life computer use. But rather than take up more of more of their time by covering it here and now, I'm going to offer to send it to anyone who wants it. They can request a copy by emailing me at username at domain dot top. Thank you, and have a nice period of planetary rotation.
The bosses will be impressed with the extra work you did and with the fact you let them all get back to work as soon as possible. Everybody will be happy you let them go rather than keep them in the meeting longer. That will improve the probabilities that they'll (1) ask for the supplement and (2) use it, plus (3) remember and use the stuff the company wanted put together. That'll get you a reputation as the IT guy that's tech smart as well as management smart, something that could go a long way towards improving your 'situation'. At least it could go this way, and knowing that before the fact you could use it to your advantage. For instance: convert the supplementary material to a slide show presentation; tell the bosses now that you have put together and are going to offer the extra material, but only as a freebie sent out upon request rather than take up more of the company's valuable time; and just generally present yourself as confident in your technical and managerial skills, both of which you apply for the good of the company, etc., etc.
To borrow a computer term, 'massively parallel', consider the 'n body problem' (down the page a bit at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem where the number of interactions is enormous, and all the bodies are in motion, making that enormous complexity change constantly in orientations and even numbers. computing this collection of interactions is typically done statistically since the calculations for the actual interactions would strain most computers.
Then consider the gravitational balance points created between every pair of bodies in the system. Those points are not gravity wells as are the bodies. Rather they are either gravity 'hills' where things fall away, or gravity 'saddles' where things fall away in one orientation and fall in perpendicular to it. These points are always on motion with the pair. Many are also changing in strength constantly due to changing distances (the Lagrange points are a special case of these balance points where one body orbits another that remains relatively stationary).
Then consider the balance points that come into being, move around, and go away due to interactions between each collection of 3 out the n bodies. And then each 4 bodies. And so on up to n. The interactions between the balance points don't create more since they're not gravity wells, but they can cross each other or come close enough to significantly alter each other including cancel out.
And ALL of this stuff is in motion. BBC says they're "mapping" the paths between all these? Bull. They're mapping (ie. predicting, because of the motion) a subset of the bodies and balance points. We used the sun/earth/moon system as an example of complex dynamics in a class at the Santa Fe Institute, and that was a bitch of a problem. The interactions between the sun and two bodies in orbit around it but not each other, say Jupiter and Saturn, create balance points in the orbital plane but constantly changing distance from the sun. I was never able to figure out whether the entire solar system including moons was an NP problem or not, but it damn sure looks like one.
Rather than try to create some long term ephemeris on these paths, which would take longer than it'd take to make the trip itself. Far better to plot the next best path to its end, then while traversing plot the next, and so on. The solution they're working on isn't intended to be a map, it's a proof of the complexity and of for providing an estimation of the travel times. And in the end it may be entirely academic, since the travel times involved mostly are in the range of significant probability that we'll lose interest in the vehicle's fate, we'll go extinct, or we'll develop a means of travel that'd make sending things this long, slow way as obsolete as the data that would have been returned.
The Apple III OS was born broken and died quickly.
OTOH, Apple's DOS 3.1 through 3.3, ProDOS and ProDOS 16 are alive and well on my Apple collection. My ProDOS 16 Apple IIgs still has Wolfram's first cellular autonoma program on it.
I do know that in some cases even severed spinal cords could grow back correctly enough for partial function if treated soon enough with a particular substance. That substance is a common food additive, so phase 1 clinical trials might be skipped.
You may have ethical reasons for being vague about what exactly this "substance" is, but given what you've said here, I'd wager you're talking about glutamate?
Glutamate is a transmitter precursor, not a growth promoter.
I didn't know whether the news was out about this stuff or not so I had to find out first. Turns out I'm way late in catching up on my son's work. The Wikipedia page on this stuff references a 2001 study done at Purdue; that was the lab he worked in as an undergrad.
Leon Festinger developed the theory of Cognitive Dissonance half a century ago from naturalistic observations very much like the conclusions and implications put forward by TFA. He didn't require a model of information spread, as it was already based on observations of behaviors resulting from people talking to each other. Such a model is hardly useful when existing evidence already supports and goes beyond the model's predictions. In any case the models served to provide the means to correctly explain behaviors. It's just that TFA is replication of results via another design, not any discovery.
It's amazing how strong many scientists believe in certain things that are not even theories, and have a hard time changing their minds in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Why should we scientists be any different from the rest of you? We're people acting like people do, we just happen to be trying to figure things out in public. Besides, we have to believe something as a starting point so we can test an idea, and when we do have evidence, develop a theory which we can then further test to find out where we're wrong, discard that, and repeat the process. A science example of this is solar neutrinos. Despite many well designed experiments using well tested devices, only one third of the predicted amount was observed. None would be a failure, but a consistent one third? That would call for changing the theory. But they didn't. After decades someone came up with an idea of how the theory was right, but neutrinos themselves acted differently than expected. The same design was used to test the old solar neutrino theory plus the new neutrino behavior theory, and the found the solar neutrinos, oscillating between types. They didn't change their minds in the face of evidence and ended up correct.
It's also amazing how people, including us, refuse to believe something new (as opposed to just different from previous beliefs) even when well supported by evidence. A science example is the 80% positive replications of chemical transfer of learning. Even a colleague of James McConnell, the guy who started this field (and the Journal of Biological Psychology/Worm Runner's Digest), wrote in his obituary in science about this "failure", correct in his statement with respect to the field but wrong as a football bat about the theory. Scientists didn't change their minds (or come to believe something) in the face of evidence, and still haven't, and they're wrong.
Then there's conflicting theories. The two major theories of emotion are that we notice a physiological response, then attach a significance to it. The other is that we notice something, develop a cognitive response, and that causes a physiological response. Completely backwards from each other. Neither side would let go because they had plenty of evidence. After a while it came to be understood that both were right, it was emotions that occurred differently in different cases (phobias and PTSD, respectively).
And recall Einstein being interviewed when Eddington was going to measure light curvature around an eclipse to test relativity. When asked what would happen if the data were contrary to the theory, he said "then heaven help the data. The theory is correct." Eddington came back with some data and said he'd proved the theory correct and everybody believed it, and many still do. It was 70 years before a different test proved the theory correct. Subsequently, it was shown that the errors rate in the few measurements Eddington had were insufficient -- he was wrong, and so were everyone else that did and do believe his claim.
Three of these four examples are from "The Golem" by Collins and Pinch. That book very thoroughly and with references speaks to your observation but in all these different aspects, and more. It's simply the best source of examples of science being conducted as a human endeavor by plain old normal humans with human behaviors. It's instructive, illuminating and quite entertaining. And in the case of things that are correct but people continue to disbelieve, such as cold fusion, quite irritating. As a scientist that last bit, to quote Spock, "thrills me no end."
So a scientific view that is considered the "settled" "consensus" view can change in the face of contrary evidence? That's good to know.
That's exactly correct. That's precisely how science works, and it wouldn't work any other way. When you continue to believe something in the face of contrary evidence, that's called being (1) irrational, (2) stupid, or (3) both. Had you paid attention when the teachers were trying to explain this, you wouldn't be (1), (2) or (3).
But I will add that, as noted below, just because you're (1), (2) or (3), you're only wrong, not trolling. Someone who mods a comment down just because it's wrong is both (2), and (5) an asshole. A troll would be something like my using the missing (4), inserting into in the comment in the paragraph above following the first (1) (2) (3), to say something like "or (4) religious". While accurate, it is inappropriate, and therefore a troll. So don't do it. Not even if you're (5) like me and think it's funny.
I don't mean "duh" to the researcher -- obviously things must be tested and validated in the real world, not just postulated -- but it never made sense to me in the first place that brain cells can't regenerate. Why the hell not? What is the adaptive purpose of such a limitation? The brain consumes a huge amount of energy, much more so per-pound than any other organ in the body. That seems to imply that the brain is extremely important to the organism. Why would essentially the most important organ in the body have such a stupid limitation that it can't even recover from MINOR damage? That makes no sense.
One possible explanation for the very limited growth rate of brain cells is that if this growth rate were not tightly controlled, it could lead to "chaotic" brain tissue which could interfere with normal brain function. So general division of brain cells would not be desirable -- but I'm no neuroscientist.
I am, and you're right in nearly every detail. I'd only add:
- New growth would consume energy that the very hungry brain would prefer not to waste that way.
- Brain function develops by strengthening some of its connections, but losing far more. You're born with 4 times the connections you die with. There's no need for new cells in terms of function.
- It actually is in repair that 'chaotic' growth occurs. Neurons are notoriously stupid when it comes to regrowing back in the same place. Severed nerve trunks try to grow back together but get tangled and miss connection, make incorrect connections, or simply turn back on themselves in a tangled "stump neuroma". Some (but not all) of this occurs because the 'interneurons' that act as the telephone poles to the neural wires also get damaged and/or die.
- There's good progress made in getting neurons to regrow and reattach properly, using techniques of treating the cut nerves with certain things and/or using host stem cells. I'm not fully up on the details, but I will be once I read a copy of my son's dissertation; he defended it last month and is just finishing the revisions. I do know that in some cases even severed spinal cords could grow back correctly enough for partial function if treated soon enough with a particular substance. That substance is a common food additive, so phase 1 clinical trials might be skipped. The hope is an injectable treatment would be available to emergency workers which, if the testing bears out the initial studies, would give people with severed nerves more than half their original function in more than half the cases.
Make the commercial devices available through the states' vocational rehabilitation offices. Sell them for more than on the street because of the administrative hassles. The states will cover the costs and give them or sell them at reduced prices to the clients. They'll also replace them as needed. If and when the replacement costs get too high, the states will tell the insurance companies to cover them. The insurance companies require each state's permission to operate there, and renewal or rejection can be based on this.
On the other hand, the devices can be covered under renter's or homeowners insurance.
Oh yeah. Guidance is LESS of a problem than YOU assume. Vectored thrust is necessary on draggy vehicles that need to punch through max Q quickly, so they start more vertical and vector over more as drag drops. And they tend to want to go to specific trajectories. A ballistic bird can be thrown at an angle based on the known motor output. If it's low drag through transonic, its max Q can last longer due to the angle and it'll still cut through to vacuum effectively. Malaysia designed and built entirely solid fueled (sugar based solids, no less) birds intended to be launched in just this way.
I'm confused, first you talk about getting to orbit, then you mention a height of 62.5 miles, which implies you are talking about a suborbital flight with a ballistic trajectory. So which is it?
Both, clearly, or so I thought. Ballistic suborbital manned; orbital unmanned with minimal guidance because orbital parameters other than "it is" are irrelevant.
You are ignoring the problem of control and guidance. A good enough guidance system could be made but then you have the issue of thrust vectoring. Fins will only get you so far so then you a thrust vectoring system. Ever notice how Tripoli seems to stay away from guidance systems? They are actually not allowed and I can think of a lot of good reasons why. You next issue would be cutting off the thrust. I would probably use a NOX hi-breed upper stage so you could control the cut off. For the real world you don't want to end up in some random orbit.
Yes it could work but it is a little more complex that you might think at least for orbital flight.
Tripoli and NAR *members* stay away from guidance because they claim it's against the rules. When you show them the rules and there's nothing in there about it, they say "yeah but then they'd come down on us for making things that can be aimed like missiles". This, despite the fact that a sun seeking optical based guidance system won an NAR R&D prize. They fought off ATFE over the ACPC/explosive argument but cower over this. So I built a gyro based vehicle that kept itself vertical in wind. I proved it's not against the rules. I also proved there's more drag cutting through the wind than if you let it windcock.
Fins are fine for a booster. Spin stab was good enough for Vanguard, it's good enough for me. And a dart doesn't need it because attitude is irrelevant. No, I'm very aware of the complexity and familiar with the possible solutions. Those I'm not familiar with, well that's what the 'consultancies' is about. I know who knows what I don't, and some of them are pros; that takes money. Not a problem.
BTW, it's "hybrid", not 'hi-breed' Been working on those too. Wax based. Very cheap, very powerful. I've been working with an engineer to come up with a reusable E size hybrid with non-pyro ejection, so they can get certified as approved motors, so that kids can use them. The only reason I'd need one upstairs is for a human in orbit, so they're on a predictable trajectory. Unmanned orbital, who cares, the point is to get it there period. No recovery so after tracking it long enough to prove it's in orbit, job done. For suborbital, even manned, it's ballistic until apogee, then a drogue serves as stabilizer (the nose is low drag, the drogue isn't -- CG before CF). Of course it's not a chute. That'd never work. It's a balloon using the same CO2 system that was ejection for the Aurora project.
"We must all rally toward a single goal: without sacrificing the growth of knowledge or scientific innovation, we must invest in a sweeping project to make science relevant to the whole of America's citizenry. We recognize there are many heroes out there already toiling toward this end and launching promising initiatives, ranging from the Year of Science to the World Science Festival to ScienceDebate. But what we need â" and currently lack â" is the systematic acceptance of the idea that these actions are integral parts of the job description of scientists themselves. Not just their delegates, or surrogates, in the media or the classrooms."
Let the fucking air out, will you? Try this:
"Let's make science cool for everybody. A lot of us already know it is. We need to show people how cool it is. Not just teachers and such, but everybody."
Don't tell me we don't talk this way amongst ourselves, because I know better. Drop the phony academic vernacular; it's precisely the mindset that makes you do that which puts people off and makes you unable to just fucking TALK with them. Get off the stage, and stay off. Get down on the ground and get dirty. Take off the suit, put on your jeans, and go out among the populace for they are who we work for.
Oh, and fuck the media. They'll pick up on every single instance of some of "us" who refuse to give up on the Hot Air Filled High Horse, sniping at any one of us who tries to talk to people like a person. You can't stop either, but you can prove the latter are assholes by persisting and getting popular. Then the former will go where the money is, and that's you, and then your job gets easier.
And it is YOU who should teach. Let them see your excitement, as young as you can reach them. Don't just talk at them, get them to DO, right along with you. Not just demonstrations of soda volcanoes and tesla coils either. Catch as many different bugs in one place as you can. Break open rocks to see what's inside. Take them from weather vane to arrow to balloon so they understand basic aerodynamics, THEN build the model rockets and fly them, and listen to them discuss amongst themselves why some flew better than others, and often be correct, and then, if you're not gratified and convinced, got put your suit back on and stay out of the way, because some of us can do this. HAVE done this.
Money, mouth. Mouth, money. As soon as there's an opening in my county or any neighboring, I'm starting secondary education training. Having a PhD and taught college, I can teach at full pay while still in training. And guess what: a high school teacher with the same background makes about the same as a college professor year for year, and there's damn fewer headaches. It doesn't preclude my teaching undergrad or grad courses, nor does it prevent me from doing research with colleagues. But I don't have to put up with the bullshit that takes so much time and effort, and can spend those having fun teaching and being cool.
I've built things in my garage, and flown them multiple times and with more power, than the only thing these people have ever had leave the pad vertically. Sure, they've been static testing all sorts of motors. More's the pity -- I don't have to.
These upstart startups are trying to cash in on investment money (though I do credit IOS with selling tubesat and ad space) and behaving at the functional amateur level as though they're professionals. The startups that don't rely on investors (Armadillo, Scaled until the second half of SS1, etc.) accomplish things the others don't. Still, they're spending a lot on R&D that they don't need to.
My money, and anyone's who wants in, says an amateur-built vehicle made from commonly available materials and off the shelf parts could put itself into orbit for under 6 figures. That includes all incidentals and consultancies. The motors, a major development issue with these companies, are available from Loki Research. Their 96" x 152mm 80,000 ns P motors were used in last April's flight of the 1/10 scale Saturn V. The reason he didn't use three was that (> 200,000 ns) would put it in the FAA/OST's ball park and therefore not amateur. Neither would this be, but the point here is to hit the goal, not just go flying with my NAR and Tripoli friends. I ran the numbers on a 3P booster with 1P sustainer using their older 60" x 152 mm 50,000 ns motors. Ground launched it'd break the 62.5 mile 'space' altitude, and balloon launched it'd break 100 miles. The new motors, obviously proven, pack 60% more power. A ground launched 2.5 stage (the 3 x 1 plus 'dart' payload/nose) should do the job.
Somebody's going to do it, before or after one of these startups. It'll be after if nobody tries before. And if it takes money, rather than investors in a commercial endeavor, sell commercials. Rocketman's GoFast, the first amateur rocket to break the space altitude was named for an 'investor' simply for the advertising. And while Dunkin' Donuts isn't likely to jump in (hey, they didn't for Astronaut Farmer, so why now?) there's some who might.
And once a vehicle gets up there, the next step is human flight. A TV commercial costs between $500,000 and $1M to produce and run the first time. For the bottom end of that, using nothing exotic, and if not off the shelf then built from off the shelf components, a truly amateur enterprise could put a person over 62.5 miles. What are the odds that a company used to paying out that kind of money would be willing to have their name on this project, particularly if at apogee that company's catch phrase got broadcast by the amateur astronaut, for instance: "Can you hear me now? Good."
The major difference is on return on investment. The commercial startups need to return their investors' money, plus. An amatuer project only needs to do what it sets out to do. An ad based amateur project only needs to do what an amateur project does, plus acknowledge the source of the funds, and not return anything to anyone beyond noteriety for the accomplishment. If it weren't for the scale of the designs and the lack of available components, Robert Truax would have done this years ago.
Ok Mr "Scientist" explain the Chrome result based on your premise of OS integration (which is a half-truth).
I'd put odds on Safari save every frigging page visited as an image for the pretty history as *Apples* fault, not Microsofts.
I'd be more than happy to.
The "Chrome Result" is no result at all. The theory of integration making a difference could explain the observations if the difference was real. I say it isn't. They tested things very few times ("at least twice", meaning twice or maybe more sometimes, doesn't cut it). To elucidate (that's "Scientist" for 'talk a lot to explain something').
All the differences except Safari's (your observation there is apt) are between 1 and 3 percent, the latter being Chrome's. To say that small amount represented a significant difference in browser function, rather than a mere accident caused by factors such as differences in the batteries charge and output at different times due to temperature, actual voltage rather than some "fully charged" signal, etc., the tests would have to be run many times. If it were just Chrome vs. IE8, the tests would have to be run enough times with consistent results in both precision (how often the difference was the same direction and same distance between the averages) and accuracy (how close the individual measurements for each came to being the same figure). If both precision and accuracy were very high, it might take 10 or 20 such tests to show that small difference was at least 95% likely to be correct (that's the accepted 'confidence level' in statistical testing). If either or both were more spread out, it'd take more tests to validate that the averages were likely enough to be different and so the difference acceptable as a "result". That's the "scientist" answer to your question.
And that's just for the two of them. The multiple comparisons from testing so many at the same time requires much more precision and accuracy, most often obtained by more measurements. And since all those others save Safari are within 1%, it's going to take a shitload (a technical term) of tests to find if they're really different. Even so, the few tests run on just the two can't result in significance, so it can't prove they're different (or fail to show no difference, as we say in statistics). One or two or a very few tests is not an experimental design, it's a "demonstration" and doesn't prove anything except that the people doing the test were able to get a result of some sort, which they cannot say anything definitive about other than "we did this and got this". The astute TV watcher can continue to appreciate Mythbusters for their many destructive testing sequences despite now knowing their "proofs" are not.
Still, considering just the simple case of IE vs. Chrome, the difference they report and that we'll use for a final explanation, is 7 hours and 34 minutes for Chrome, 7 hours and 21 minutes for IE. The way statistics works, we could probably keep running the tests up to thousands of times and force the result to become statistically significant. But such significance should be compared to the more real world measure, practical significance. The battery runs out after 7.5 hours +4/-9 minutes. Under what conditions is that 13 minute range going to matter, no matter which is at what end of it? That's the unasked "I'd plug it in when the indicator showed it was getting low rather than take the chance it's going to run out a few minutes sooner this time for some reason" answer.
And a few billion dollars? And thousands of engineers, and hundreds of thousands of people at various jobs of all kinds? And a greater proportion of existing computer power (such as it was at the time, but it wasn't slide rules either) devoted to a single endeavor than has ever occurred since?
The web does not represent "human behavior", it is an environment where a small subset of human social behavior, filtered through some very specific and narrow filters, gets represented in an abstract form, that form itself restricted by the medium. A termite nest, like an online community and a financial market, is a social network. So should they develop a theory about individuals piling their wealth randomly until several end up in the same place, the observation of which sends everyone into a frenzy and they pile everything they can get their hands on on top of the rest?
If they want to include typical human reactions to crisis, they should look up Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance. It was developed after observations of earthquake victims who, instead of being relieved it was over, continued to expect even worse to happen. It explains well how a panic reaction can set in. It can also explain how the opposite can happen, such as why the heads of Enron sat around expecting to get away with it even after it crashed, when they could have liquidated enough just a week sooner to carry on a charter flight and lived comfortably for the rest of their lives. It might even be able to explain how otherwise rational individuals can grasp at one ridiculous concept after another in hopes of finding a predictive model, when every single time they try it, it fails. Oh wait, there's the termite theory.
Slashdot Mirror
The first US phase 1 trial, yes. The FDA couldn't have approved the first neural stem cell trial because it was conducted in Sweden by Hakan Widner in 1982 http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/26/us/success-reported-using-fetal-tissue-to-repair-a-brain.html
George Carillo was the first recipient. He was the first and worst of the 'frozen addicts' covered in J William Langston's "The Case of the Frozen Addicts". His and others' poisoning by MPTP contaminated home made fentanyl resulted in Parkinsonism, which was partially reversed by fetal neural cell grafting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPTP
Their misfortune and subsequent treatment contributed to our now extensive understanding of Parkinson's and of the dopamine system, understanding that contributed to the success of Drs Arvid Carlsson, Paul Greengard, and Eric R. Kandel, recipients of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology. It also contributed to the discovery of endogenous MPTP, and that its conversion to MPP+ in neural mitochondria could be blocked in a majority of cases by trimethylnaphthoquinone, an MAO inhibitor found in tobacco.
Plague. Death. Otherwise healthy individuals.
'Toxic Skies'.
The only difference is there's no mention of chemtrails in the Sun-Times article. Of course, there wouldn't be, would there.
You can call it 'Fred and Barny' if you like, the owners are going to call it what they intend for it to be. As for the rationalizing rhapsody of contrast and comparison, forget it. No analogies suffice. There is nothing "like" the net.
Puncture proof/resistant gloves for health care workers.
"If you had the attention of an entire company...."
I'd tell them I have put together a collection of security/privacy related issues that may or may not relate to things at work but definitely relate to their personal life computer use. But rather than take up more of more of their time by covering it here and now, I'm going to offer to send it to anyone who wants it. They can request a copy by emailing me at username at domain dot top. Thank you, and have a nice period of planetary rotation.
The bosses will be impressed with the extra work you did and with the fact you let them all get back to work as soon as possible. Everybody will be happy you let them go rather than keep them in the meeting longer. That will improve the probabilities that they'll (1) ask for the supplement and (2) use it, plus (3) remember and use the stuff the company wanted put together. That'll get you a reputation as the IT guy that's tech smart as well as management smart, something that could go a long way towards improving your 'situation'. At least it could go this way, and knowing that before the fact you could use it to your advantage. For instance: convert the supplementary material to a slide show presentation; tell the bosses now that you have put together and are going to offer the extra material, but only as a freebie sent out upon request rather than take up more of the company's valuable time; and just generally present yourself as confident in your technical and managerial skills, both of which you apply for the good of the company, etc., etc.
In other words, don't just give it, use it.
To borrow a computer term, 'massively parallel', consider the 'n body problem' (down the page a bit at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem where the number of interactions is enormous, and all the bodies are in motion, making that enormous complexity change constantly in orientations and even numbers. computing this collection of interactions is typically done statistically since the calculations for the actual interactions would strain most computers.
Then consider the gravitational balance points created between every pair of bodies in the system. Those points are not gravity wells as are the bodies. Rather they are either gravity 'hills' where things fall away, or gravity 'saddles' where things fall away in one orientation and fall in perpendicular to it. These points are always on motion with the pair. Many are also changing in strength constantly due to changing distances (the Lagrange points are a special case of these balance points where one body orbits another that remains relatively stationary).
Then consider the balance points that come into being, move around, and go away due to interactions between each collection of 3 out the n bodies. And then each 4 bodies. And so on up to n. The interactions between the balance points don't create more since they're not gravity wells, but they can cross each other or come close enough to significantly alter each other including cancel out.
And ALL of this stuff is in motion. BBC says they're "mapping" the paths between all these? Bull. They're mapping (ie. predicting, because of the motion) a subset of the bodies and balance points. We used the sun/earth/moon system as an example of complex dynamics in a class at the Santa Fe Institute, and that was a bitch of a problem. The interactions between the sun and two bodies in orbit around it but not each other, say Jupiter and Saturn, create balance points in the orbital plane but constantly changing distance from the sun. I was never able to figure out whether the entire solar system including moons was an NP problem or not, but it damn sure looks like one.
Rather than try to create some long term ephemeris on these paths, which would take longer than it'd take to make the trip itself. Far better to plot the next best path to its end, then while traversing plot the next, and so on. The solution they're working on isn't intended to be a map, it's a proof of the complexity and of for providing an estimation of the travel times. And in the end it may be entirely academic, since the travel times involved mostly are in the range of significant probability that we'll lose interest in the vehicle's fate, we'll go extinct, or we'll develop a means of travel that'd make sending things this long, slow way as obsolete as the data that would have been returned.
The Apple III OS was born broken and died quickly.
OTOH, Apple's DOS 3.1 through 3.3, ProDOS and ProDOS 16 are alive and well on my Apple collection. My ProDOS 16 Apple IIgs still has Wolfram's first cellular autonoma program on it.
The episode of How It's Made" you saw was made some time before. The last maker of player piano rolls quit making them this year.
I do know that in some cases even severed spinal cords could grow back correctly enough for partial function if treated soon enough with a particular substance. That substance is a common food additive, so phase 1 clinical trials might be skipped.
You may have ethical reasons for being vague about what exactly this "substance" is, but given what you've said here, I'd wager you're talking about glutamate?
Glutamate is a transmitter precursor, not a growth promoter.
I didn't know whether the news was out about this stuff or not so I had to find out first. Turns out I'm way late in catching up on my son's work. The Wikipedia page on this stuff references a 2001 study done at Purdue; that was the lab he worked in as an undergrad.
Polyethylene glycol. Since 2006 it's been allowed as a direct additive http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2006/March/Day-13/i2354.htm
Go to PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez and put in "polyethylene glycol spinal cord" as search terms.
Leon Festinger developed the theory of Cognitive Dissonance half a century ago from naturalistic observations very much like the conclusions and implications put forward by TFA. He didn't require a model of information spread, as it was already based on observations of behaviors resulting from people talking to each other. Such a model is hardly useful when existing evidence already supports and goes beyond the model's predictions. In any case the models served to provide the means to correctly explain behaviors. It's just that TFA is replication of results via another design, not any discovery.
It's amazing how strong many scientists believe in certain things that are not even theories, and have a hard time changing their minds in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Why should we scientists be any different from the rest of you? We're people acting like people do, we just happen to be trying to figure things out in public. Besides, we have to believe something as a starting point so we can test an idea, and when we do have evidence, develop a theory which we can then further test to find out where we're wrong, discard that, and repeat the process. A science example of this is solar neutrinos. Despite many well designed experiments using well tested devices, only one third of the predicted amount was observed. None would be a failure, but a consistent one third? That would call for changing the theory. But they didn't. After decades someone came up with an idea of how the theory was right, but neutrinos themselves acted differently than expected. The same design was used to test the old solar neutrino theory plus the new neutrino behavior theory, and the found the solar neutrinos, oscillating between types. They didn't change their minds in the face of evidence and ended up correct.
It's also amazing how people, including us, refuse to believe something new (as opposed to just different from previous beliefs) even when well supported by evidence. A science example is the 80% positive replications of chemical transfer of learning. Even a colleague of James McConnell, the guy who started this field (and the Journal of Biological Psychology/Worm Runner's Digest), wrote in his obituary in science about this "failure", correct in his statement with respect to the field but wrong as a football bat about the theory. Scientists didn't change their minds (or come to believe something) in the face of evidence, and still haven't, and they're wrong.
Then there's conflicting theories. The two major theories of emotion are that we notice a physiological response, then attach a significance to it. The other is that we notice something, develop a cognitive response, and that causes a physiological response. Completely backwards from each other. Neither side would let go because they had plenty of evidence. After a while it came to be understood that both were right, it was emotions that occurred differently in different cases (phobias and PTSD, respectively).
And recall Einstein being interviewed when Eddington was going to measure light curvature around an eclipse to test relativity. When asked what would happen if the data were contrary to the theory, he said "then heaven help the data. The theory is correct." Eddington came back with some data and said he'd proved the theory correct and everybody believed it, and many still do. It was 70 years before a different test proved the theory correct. Subsequently, it was shown that the errors rate in the few measurements Eddington had were insufficient -- he was wrong, and so were everyone else that did and do believe his claim.
Three of these four examples are from "The Golem" by Collins and Pinch. That book very thoroughly and with references speaks to your observation but in all these different aspects, and more. It's simply the best source of examples of science being conducted as a human endeavor by plain old normal humans with human behaviors. It's instructive, illuminating and quite entertaining. And in the case of things that are correct but people continue to disbelieve, such as cold fusion, quite irritating. As a scientist that last bit, to quote Spock, "thrills me no end."
So a scientific view that is considered the "settled" "consensus" view can change in the face of contrary evidence? That's good to know.
That's exactly correct. That's precisely how science works, and it wouldn't work any other way. When you continue to believe something in the face of contrary evidence, that's called being (1) irrational, (2) stupid, or (3) both. Had you paid attention when the teachers were trying to explain this, you wouldn't be (1), (2) or (3).
But I will add that, as noted below, just because you're (1), (2) or (3), you're only wrong, not trolling. Someone who mods a comment down just because it's wrong is both (2), and (5) an asshole. A troll would be something like my using the missing (4), inserting into in the comment in the paragraph above following the first (1) (2) (3), to say something like "or (4) religious". While accurate, it is inappropriate, and therefore a troll. So don't do it. Not even if you're (5) like me and think it's funny.
I don't mean "duh" to the researcher -- obviously things must be tested and validated in the real world, not just postulated -- but it never made sense to me in the first place that brain cells can't regenerate. Why the hell not? What is the adaptive purpose of such a limitation? The brain consumes a huge amount of energy, much more so per-pound than any other organ in the body. That seems to imply that the brain is extremely important to the organism. Why would essentially the most important organ in the body have such a stupid limitation that it can't even recover from MINOR damage? That makes no sense.
One possible explanation for the very limited growth rate of brain cells is that if this growth rate were not tightly controlled, it could lead to "chaotic" brain tissue which could interfere with normal brain function. So general division of brain cells would not be desirable -- but I'm no neuroscientist.
I am, and you're right in nearly every detail. I'd only add:
- New growth would consume energy that the very hungry brain would prefer not to waste that way.
- Brain function develops by strengthening some of its connections, but losing far more. You're born with 4 times the connections you die with. There's no need for new cells in terms of function.
- It actually is in repair that 'chaotic' growth occurs. Neurons are notoriously stupid when it comes to regrowing back in the same place. Severed nerve trunks try to grow back together but get tangled and miss connection, make incorrect connections, or simply turn back on themselves in a tangled "stump neuroma". Some (but not all) of this occurs because the 'interneurons' that act as the telephone poles to the neural wires also get damaged and/or die.
- There's good progress made in getting neurons to regrow and reattach properly, using techniques of treating the cut nerves with certain things and/or using host stem cells. I'm not fully up on the details, but I will be once I read a copy of my son's dissertation; he defended it last month and is just finishing the revisions. I do know that in some cases even severed spinal cords could grow back correctly enough for partial function if treated soon enough with a particular substance. That substance is a common food additive, so phase 1 clinical trials might be skipped. The hope is an injectable treatment would be available to emergency workers which, if the testing bears out the initial studies, would give people with severed nerves more than half their original function in more than half the cases.
Make the commercial devices available through the states' vocational rehabilitation offices. Sell them for more than on the street because of the administrative hassles. The states will cover the costs and give them or sell them at reduced prices to the clients. They'll also replace them as needed. If and when the replacement costs get too high, the states will tell the insurance companies to cover them. The insurance companies require each state's permission to operate there, and renewal or rejection can be based on this.
On the other hand, the devices can be covered under renter's or homeowners insurance.
Oh yeah. Guidance is LESS of a problem than YOU assume. Vectored thrust is necessary on draggy vehicles that need to punch through max Q quickly, so they start more vertical and vector over more as drag drops. And they tend to want to go to specific trajectories. A ballistic bird can be thrown at an angle based on the known motor output. If it's low drag through transonic, its max Q can last longer due to the angle and it'll still cut through to vacuum effectively. Malaysia designed and built entirely solid fueled (sugar based solids, no less) birds intended to be launched in just this way.
I'm confused, first you talk about getting to orbit, then you mention a height of 62.5 miles, which implies you are talking about a suborbital flight with a ballistic trajectory. So which is it?
Both, clearly, or so I thought. Ballistic suborbital manned; orbital unmanned with minimal guidance because orbital parameters other than "it is" are irrelevant.
You are ignoring the problem of control and guidance. A good enough guidance system could be made but then you have the issue of thrust vectoring. Fins will only get you so far so then you a thrust vectoring system. Ever notice how Tripoli seems to stay away from guidance systems? They are actually not allowed and I can think of a lot of good reasons why.
You next issue would be cutting off the thrust. I would probably use a NOX hi-breed upper stage so you could control the cut off. For the real world you don't want to end up in some random orbit.
Yes it could work but it is a little more complex that you might think at least for orbital flight.
Tripoli and NAR *members* stay away from guidance because they claim it's against the rules. When you show them the rules and there's nothing in there about it, they say "yeah but then they'd come down on us for making things that can be aimed like missiles". This, despite the fact that a sun seeking optical based guidance system won an NAR R&D prize. They fought off ATFE over the ACPC/explosive argument but cower over this. So I built a gyro based vehicle that kept itself vertical in wind. I proved it's not against the rules. I also proved there's more drag cutting through the wind than if you let it windcock.
Fins are fine for a booster. Spin stab was good enough for Vanguard, it's good enough for me. And a dart doesn't need it because attitude is irrelevant. No, I'm very aware of the complexity and familiar with the possible solutions. Those I'm not familiar with, well that's what the 'consultancies' is about. I know who knows what I don't, and some of them are pros; that takes money. Not a problem.
BTW, it's "hybrid", not 'hi-breed' Been working on those too. Wax based. Very cheap, very powerful. I've been working with an engineer to come up with a reusable E size hybrid with non-pyro ejection, so they can get certified as approved motors, so that kids can use them. The only reason I'd need one upstairs is for a human in orbit, so they're on a predictable trajectory. Unmanned orbital, who cares, the point is to get it there period. No recovery so after tracking it long enough to prove it's in orbit, job done. For suborbital, even manned, it's ballistic until apogee, then a drogue serves as stabilizer (the nose is low drag, the drogue isn't -- CG before CF). Of course it's not a chute. That'd never work. It's a balloon using the same CO2 system that was ejection for the Aurora project.
"We must all rally toward a single goal: without sacrificing the growth of knowledge or scientific innovation, we must invest in a sweeping project to make science relevant to the whole of America's citizenry. We recognize there are many heroes out there already toiling toward this end and launching promising initiatives, ranging from the Year of Science to the World Science Festival to ScienceDebate. But what we need â" and currently lack â" is the systematic acceptance of the idea that these actions are integral parts of the job description of scientists themselves. Not just their delegates, or surrogates, in the media or the classrooms."
Let the fucking air out, will you? Try this:
"Let's make science cool for everybody. A lot of us already know it is. We need to show people how cool it is. Not just teachers and such, but everybody."
Don't tell me we don't talk this way amongst ourselves, because I know better. Drop the phony academic vernacular; it's precisely the mindset that makes you do that which puts people off and makes you unable to just fucking TALK with them. Get off the stage, and stay off. Get down on the ground and get dirty. Take off the suit, put on your jeans, and go out among the populace for they are who we work for.
Oh, and fuck the media. They'll pick up on every single instance of some of "us" who refuse to give up on the Hot Air Filled High Horse, sniping at any one of us who tries to talk to people like a person. You can't stop either, but you can prove the latter are assholes by persisting and getting popular. Then the former will go where the money is, and that's you, and then your job gets easier.
And it is YOU who should teach. Let them see your excitement, as young as you can reach them. Don't just talk at them, get them to DO, right along with you. Not just demonstrations of soda volcanoes and tesla coils either. Catch as many different bugs in one place as you can. Break open rocks to see what's inside. Take them from weather vane to arrow to balloon so they understand basic aerodynamics, THEN build the model rockets and fly them, and listen to them discuss amongst themselves why some flew better than others, and often be correct, and then, if you're not gratified and convinced, got put your suit back on and stay out of the way, because some of us can do this. HAVE done this.
Money, mouth. Mouth, money. As soon as there's an opening in my county or any neighboring, I'm starting secondary education training. Having a PhD and taught college, I can teach at full pay while still in training. And guess what: a high school teacher with the same background makes about the same as a college professor year for year, and there's damn fewer headaches. It doesn't preclude my teaching undergrad or grad courses, nor does it prevent me from doing research with colleagues. But I don't have to put up with the bullshit that takes so much time and effort, and can spend those having fun teaching and being cool.
haiku da ne?
sore chigau no yo
shinjin sou na...
I can't read that wiggly stuff,
but I can add.
They are all seventeen.
I've built things in my garage, and flown them multiple times and with more power, than the only thing these people have ever had leave the pad vertically. Sure, they've been static testing all sorts of motors. More's the pity -- I don't have to.
These upstart startups are trying to cash in on investment money (though I do credit IOS with selling tubesat and ad space) and behaving at the functional amateur level as though they're professionals. The startups that don't rely on investors (Armadillo, Scaled until the second half of SS1, etc.) accomplish things the others don't. Still, they're spending a lot on R&D that they don't need to.
My money, and anyone's who wants in, says an amateur-built vehicle made from commonly available materials and off the shelf parts could put itself into orbit for under 6 figures. That includes all incidentals and consultancies. The motors, a major development issue with these companies, are available from Loki Research. Their 96" x 152mm 80,000 ns P motors were used in last April's flight of the 1/10 scale Saturn V. The reason he didn't use three was that (> 200,000 ns) would put it in the FAA/OST's ball park and therefore not amateur. Neither would this be, but the point here is to hit the goal, not just go flying with my NAR and Tripoli friends. I ran the numbers on a 3P booster with 1P sustainer using their older 60" x 152 mm 50,000 ns motors. Ground launched it'd break the 62.5 mile 'space' altitude, and balloon launched it'd break 100 miles. The new motors, obviously proven, pack 60% more power. A ground launched 2.5 stage (the 3 x 1 plus 'dart' payload/nose) should do the job.
Somebody's going to do it, before or after one of these startups. It'll be after if nobody tries before. And if it takes money, rather than investors in a commercial endeavor, sell commercials. Rocketman's GoFast, the first amateur rocket to break the space altitude was named for an 'investor' simply for the advertising. And while Dunkin' Donuts isn't likely to jump in (hey, they didn't for Astronaut Farmer, so why now?) there's some who might.
And once a vehicle gets up there, the next step is human flight. A TV commercial costs between $500,000 and $1M to produce and run the first time. For the bottom end of that, using nothing exotic, and if not off the shelf then built from off the shelf components, a truly amateur enterprise could put a person over 62.5 miles. What are the odds that a company used to paying out that kind of money would be willing to have their name on this project, particularly if at apogee that company's catch phrase got broadcast by the amateur astronaut, for instance: "Can you hear me now? Good."
The major difference is on return on investment. The commercial startups need to return their investors' money, plus. An amatuer project only needs to do what it sets out to do. An ad based amateur project only needs to do what an amateur project does, plus acknowledge the source of the funds, and not return anything to anyone beyond noteriety for the accomplishment. If it weren't for the scale of the designs and the lack of available components, Robert Truax would have done this years ago.
It's not only Slashdotted,
SMTP
fails to mail out passwords.
I could have predicted it:
One hour later,
the site is Slashdotted.
Ok Mr "Scientist" explain the Chrome result based on your premise of OS integration (which is a half-truth).
I'd put odds on Safari save every frigging page visited as an image for the pretty history as *Apples* fault, not Microsofts.
I'd be more than happy to.
The "Chrome Result" is no result at all. The theory of integration making a difference could explain the observations if the difference was real. I say it isn't. They tested things very few times ("at least twice", meaning twice or maybe more sometimes, doesn't cut it). To elucidate (that's "Scientist" for 'talk a lot to explain something').
All the differences except Safari's (your observation there is apt) are between 1 and 3 percent, the latter being Chrome's. To say that small amount represented a significant difference in browser function, rather than a mere accident caused by factors such as differences in the batteries charge and output at different times due to temperature, actual voltage rather than some "fully charged" signal, etc., the tests would have to be run many times. If it were just Chrome vs. IE8, the tests would have to be run enough times with consistent results in both precision (how often the difference was the same direction and same distance between the averages) and accuracy (how close the individual measurements for each came to being the same figure). If both precision and accuracy were very high, it might take 10 or 20 such tests to show that small difference was at least 95% likely to be correct (that's the accepted 'confidence level' in statistical testing). If either or both were more spread out, it'd take more tests to validate that the averages were likely enough to be different and so the difference acceptable as a "result". That's the "scientist" answer to your question.
And that's just for the two of them. The multiple comparisons from testing so many at the same time requires much more precision and accuracy, most often obtained by more measurements. And since all those others save Safari are within 1%, it's going to take a shitload (a technical term) of tests to find if they're really different. Even so, the few tests run on just the two can't result in significance, so it can't prove they're different (or fail to show no difference, as we say in statistics). One or two or a very few tests is not an experimental design, it's a "demonstration" and doesn't prove anything except that the people doing the test were able to get a result of some sort, which they cannot say anything definitive about other than "we did this and got this". The astute TV watcher can continue to appreciate Mythbusters for their many destructive testing sequences despite now knowing their "proofs" are not.
Still, considering just the simple case of IE vs. Chrome, the difference they report and that we'll use for a final explanation, is 7 hours and 34 minutes for Chrome, 7 hours and 21 minutes for IE. The way statistics works, we could probably keep running the tests up to thousands of times and force the result to become statistically significant. But such significance should be compared to the more real world measure, practical significance. The battery runs out after 7.5 hours +4/-9 minutes. Under what conditions is that 13 minute range going to matter, no matter which is at what end of it? That's the unasked "I'd plug it in when the indicator showed it was getting low rather than take the chance it's going to run out a few minutes sooner this time for some reason" answer.
And that's Doctor "Scientist" to you. I'm the second author, although I'm first author for my dissertation, from which this was pulled.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11755262?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Like, with slide rules?
And a few billion dollars? And thousands of engineers, and hundreds of thousands of people at various jobs of all kinds? And a greater proportion of existing computer power (such as it was at the time, but it wasn't slide rules either) devoted to a single endeavor than has ever occurred since?
Anyway, "we" who? Is that you Dr. von Braun?
The web does not represent "human behavior", it is an environment where a small subset of human social behavior, filtered through some very specific and narrow filters, gets represented in an abstract form, that form itself restricted by the medium. A termite nest, like an online community and a financial market, is a social network. So should they develop a theory about individuals piling their wealth randomly until several end up in the same place, the observation of which sends everyone into a frenzy and they pile everything they can get their hands on on top of the rest?
If they want to include typical human reactions to crisis, they should look up Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance. It was developed after observations of earthquake victims who, instead of being relieved it was over, continued to expect even worse to happen. It explains well how a panic reaction can set in. It can also explain how the opposite can happen, such as why the heads of Enron sat around expecting to get away with it even after it crashed, when they could have liquidated enough just a week sooner to carry on a charter flight and lived comfortably for the rest of their lives. It might even be able to explain how otherwise rational individuals can grasp at one ridiculous concept after another in hopes of finding a predictive model, when every single time they try it, it fails. Oh wait, there's the termite theory.