The fact is that a few psychologists had patients with a problem, and suddenly a large number of them were expertly qualified to treat this problem. They've done the same for years with internet use, arcade games, hacking, and a problem of the year going back decades. They act as if the thing is addictive and the person is a victim of a disease. They make big money treating people with whatever happens to be their favorite technique whether or not it works. They can't know whether it does or not because there's little to no data supporting a given treatment, they don't have to promise results, and the attrition rate is such that they'll have very few left at the end as failures and almost certainly none coming back a second time. If any do come back, they'll find that the psychologist ash moved on to their next area of expertise, the next big (income generating) addiction.
There's no doubt some people form obsessive and/or compulsive behaviors (with or without the actual disorder) over some things. But the thing is arbitrary and becomes the focus simply because it's what the person first chose to spend time with. Such a person needs treatment for their own predilection, not for being the victim of their activities. Furthermore, they treat these "addictions" as if they were just that. But an addiction has a clear medical description beyond obsessive and/or compulsive behavior. These psychologists are neither trained to determine whether the physiological changes have occurred or to treat for them if they have.
Unfortunately the largest professional organization for psychologists in the US is the same one that writes the book for making diagnoses (which can come and go with social pressures), and is comprised in majority by the psychologists whose income depends on finding (and competing for) patients -- clinical psychologists. To bring home the point of the arbitrary nature of their mutual income support system, the diagnoses they create and describe are often different from similar diagnostic instruments from elsewhere.
That sums up the reason I refused to join that particular organization.
"...instead of asking for passwords or pin numbers, a call center or bank would simply use a device on their telephone to produce a brief series of clicks in the recipient's ear to confirm the person is who they say they are."
Complete bollocks. Phones doesn't have anywhere near the reproduction characteristics for the received click to be near the same as the original. The OAE response depends on the stimulus characteristics.
And they certainly don't have the ability to return the OAE signal as anything remotely like the original in terms of frequency response, and probably aren't even sensitive enough in terms of signal pick up to even detect it. So glad to know they got funded for something that anyone with experience in the field would have told them won't work.
"'"It absolutely is worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage because we are not in a vacuum,"
How gratifying to know that the top of the energy [industry] food chain is educated enough to be aware we have an atmosphere.
As for carbon capture and *storage*, perhaps we can have Mr. Chu's address so we can use his backyard for storage. He's the first d00d of energy, he should get the first load of carbon.
"33 billion kilowatt hours of energy annually, which is approximately enough to power 2.4 million US homes (or roughly 3.1 million cars) for a year"
You can't power cars with kilowatts. If you're going to make a nonsensical unit conversion, make it good. Spam uses around 8.761 x 10^16 foot pounds, or 1.188 x 10^24 ergs, or 7.451 x 10^35 electron volts. Still working on how many parsecs it would cut off the the Kessel run.
The suggestions that straight beams could do the same are only partly right, and indicate who didn't read TFA. The concentration of the most intense part of the beam due to the curving mask and lens makes it more efficient than unaltered straight beams in creating ionized channels for a given beam strength. Something that did the same concentrating for straight beams would produce the same effect, but the fact remains that the curving mechanism would produce it as stated.
A proxy serves to protect the initiator by acting on its behalf. It represents the initiator to the source being addressed.
Lawyers are proxies for their clients.
Being represented by a lawyer is a 'sophistication' and should lead to a harsher sentence.
Lest one think that "in committing a crime" doesn't apply, consider that a person swears to tell "the whole truth", that not doing so is lying which is perjury, and that the lawyer representing the person attempts to promote one particular version of the truth, thus not "the whole truth". A lawyer perjures on behalf of their client, and the ubiquitous "or causes to" term can be applied, making the client responsible for the perjury committed by the lawyer.
I was under the impression a dimension was like a mathematical axis, i.e. infinite in two directions...?
There's no such animal outside theory. In the real universe, spacetime is curved, more or less depending upon local conditions, but definitely never geometric line straight. If it appears that way it's because either the curve is too slow, you are similarly curved, or both. At the most extreme, the theoretical 'closed' universe curves back on itself as if you lived on the inside surface of a balloon.
Taking the lead from this Einsteinian view, string theory says the other dimensions are curved also, but to the extreme -- like to the Planck length or less (the smallest possible "grain" of the universe). The difference is not quality, only in quantity. That balloon you live in? Make it the so small that in size it is to an atom as an atom is to the Earth.
Once you've bent your head around that, consider that due to the Planck stuff, and things like Hawking's idea that near a singluarity (such as a Planck scale phenomenon) time and space fold into each other, no dimension no matter how straight, is an exact integer at all scales. This is true of the usual 4, and almost certainly of the other hypothesized 7. These other than integer dimensions are said to be "fractional". From fractional dimensions comes the word "fractal". And here you thought fractals were just good for producing CGIs of clouds, mountains, explosions and so forth. They are, but it's because they also produce the appearance of the real things.
A moderate yield nuke deep in hard bedrock results in a hollow dome. Make it deep enough, below the possibility of rising to the water table. Dump in nuclear waste from reactors (nothing that can reach a critical mass). When full, detonate a small yield device in the bore hole above the dome, sealing it. This can accomplish disposal of both waste and surplus warheads.
How many recall such threats to the internet as the massive ascii storm caused by Cantor and Siegel and the like, or the sudden tsunami of traffic due to graphics being constantly broadcast by the world wide webby thingy?
Those and many other phenomena usually resulted in people running around with their hair on fire, flapping their arms and screaming DEATH OF THE INTERNET!
The majority of bandwidth is taken up by email spam and botnet traffic. Next to those URL relay traffic isn't even noticeable.
"The asteroids themselves could well be left-over from the formation of the solar system."
No way. The Lagrange points are theoretical solutions to the 3 body problem. The Earth-Sun system is not 3 body. The Earth's relationship with the moon is such that their common center is outside the Earth. Fluctuations in the gravity field of the co-orbiting the Earth-moon would guarantee no permanently stable solution.
The L4 and L5 points are not gravity wells. They are the tops of gravity hills (see the top map at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point ). The slightest perturbation will result in a body at those points to orbit the point and eventually be thrown out. We have satellites at Lagrange points now and they are operated in that way. They orbit the L point, and have station keeping motors to keep them orbiting them.
The above is doubly applicable if the theorized collision scenario occurred. The moon supposedly came from the collision of the Earth and a Mars sized object. Such a collision would preclude their being any L points that remained stable throughout, making it impossible that there should be asteroids remaining in such points since the beginning of the solar system.
Earlier today I had an urge to listen to Devo's Jocko Homo from their self-produced movie. Found two copies, only to have the sound removed because a record label was claiming copywrite on the music. Hello, the music is within a movie which is copywrited by Devo Productions, how can you claim to control what is within their own movie?!?
Devo owns the rights to the movie and music, and can do whatever they want with that material and the associated rights (that someone is willing to pick up). They obviously sold, leased or otherwise signed away the rights to audio reproduction of the soundtrack and/or songs therein. They probably still own it but are sharing the reproduction rights with the record company because it is more likely to be able to make them money than if they simply retained the rights. I suspect this is because their record production capabilities are less than the label's.
The Simon Fraser studies were covered by "60 Minutes" not long ago.
Long ago, they also covered the first such computerized device. A paralyzed young woman 'rode' a motorized stationary bicycle. An electromyelogram controlled by an Apple II recorded signals from her muscles. These signals were moved to a device that she could wear which used the recorded signals to control stimulation signals sent to those muscles. This artificially controlled her legs for her allowing her to walk. She was just learning to when the story came out. She stated that she planned on being able to walk down the aisle to get married, with a year. Less than a month later Dan Rather reported on the CBS Evening News that the woman did in fact walk down the aisle using the device. That was the second time I saw Dan Rather cry on the air, the first being just after the Apollo 8 Christmas eve reading of Genesis following their first pass behind the moon.
I tried finding record of the earlier reports to find out if it was the start of the Simon Fraser work, but couldn't locate any.
There's at least two reasons the professor's method is beneficial:
1. By having to search by hand and scan by eye, he becomes more familiar with more of what's actually in the papers. His familiarity with the material gets better.
2. Repetitive scanning/searching of the papers leads to the mind partially wandering while doing so. This can result in inspiration and intuitive leaps.
Both methods together are preferable. But good luck on getting the professor to use them. You may have better luck getting him to create his own indices or tables of contents on paper to put in the binders. With his familiarity it shouldn't be too difficult.
I'd hope that the "one of the lead authors" (isn't there only one lead author?) would correct some of the misstatements in the summary.
The system digitizes the map, not the brain.
Isn't "digitizes" a gratuitous inclusion by now?
Mapping can produce a static picture of a dynamic system. The brain works by changing its structure. Thus, the "functioning" they can discern will be extremely limited. Actual functioning could be mapped by remapping the same brain after learning and such, if the analysis is sufficiently fine grained.
Best guess right now is that there are over 100 billion (100 thousand million in the British system) neurons, and even more glial cells which are implicated in neural function. Interconnection of these is such that no neuron is farther than 6 connections from any other neuron, with an average of 3 connections between. Mapping a system like that is certainly possible. Analyzing that map statistically and understanding it may follow, but only in a limited sense and probably not for some time.
The mapping system may be able to describe the interconnections physically. This will do little to help describe the non-connection interactions of neurons via electrical field effects on nearby but not physically connected dentritic trees.
Despite shortcomings in the summary and possibly in the system itself, it's a fine step forward and could add a nice tool to the brain science tool box.
Knowing the mechanism for increasing Treg leads to understanding the mechanism for controlling, thus including suppressing Treg. That would boost the body's immune response. It could control (though not cure) AIDS, and lead to treatments of such as hepatitis B or C without requiring the very side effect laden pegylated alfa interferon 2 + ribavirin treatment. Inducing autoimmnune disease has already been suggested as a cancer treatment http://www.pnas.org/content/96/10/5340.full
As explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_system an immune system is a very complex system with many components that interact. The more of these we can manipulate the closer we get to the kind of treatments suggested above.
The advice about seeking out the teacher rather than the subject matches the single best piece of advice I received or handed out in my career. In fact, I used it to disprove the previous section regarding not swimming upstream.
While getting an MHA (that's an MBA for health care industry) I was given that advice by my professor. Later I attended a conference about "consciousness" at a small college. I witnessed the conference organizer trying very hard to come to an agreement with two others, clearly from different fields, what they meant by the word "energy". I had no idea who the guy was or what he did, but I knew I wanted to learn from him. It turned out he was Karl Pribram (neuroscience), the other two being Roger Penrose (physics) and Harold Liebowitz (then president of the National Academy of Engineering). What I wanted most was to learn from someone who worked that hard to turn science into shared knowledge. So I did; a year later I was in Karl's office, having just been admitted to his psychology master's program, telling him this story. No, his eyes didn't bug out. He took it to heart and taught me how to learn as well as everything he could about the field. I was 41. I got my PhD in neuroscience 7 years later. It could have been 6, but I was working on a very interesting project (tobacco as a preventative for Parkinson's, as mentioned in "Thank You For Smoking"). I was awarded non-competitive post-docs at NIH and Yale, finishing them at 50 and joining academia
Anybody can float down stream and most do. They'll tell you that's how it works. Fuck that noise. Swimming up stream makes you stronger. Worst that can happen is you fail and end up floating around with the other drifters. But I can tell you with the confidence of experience, an elephant can fly.
Despite the quite correct statement by a few people that the millenium changed Jan 1 2001, the vast majority of people ignored that and celebrated the arrival of 2000 as the new millenium. No matter how right you are about Linux's age etc., the vast majority will completely fail to notice you and your dogmatic assertions, and will enjoy themselves in spite of you.
Organize a working lab for them. They are to decide (within your specified field) what they find interesting and want to learn about. An example from my work, someone noted that the doors on the local Walmart had IN and OUT signs, that some people tended to ignore those, and that the IN and OUT were on opposite sides on the opposite ends of the building. They wanted to know why the sides were different, and depending on the answer, seeing if that answer had anything to do with the first.
Make them responsible for the project by making yourself simply the most knowledgeable member of the lab team. Allow them every source they can think of, including any other teachers or yourself, because when people do real science they're not restricted to the one authority supervising them.
When they pick what to study, help them develop the methodology/design. Describe why you chose one in terms they can understand.
Set them collecting their data, tell them how best to analyze it, and let them go. Provide them with a template of how you want them to produce their results (APA paper format or a poster template).
Let them make their own mistakes and try to correct them. If they ask for help, give it, because you're a lab member too.
I've done this with undergrad labs, including one with 3 high school students among the 8 members. Two went to international conferences, two others got published. They were always done by a 1 hour per week, 16 week lab course, plus the necessary extra time of working in the lab.
Oh, and let them tell you what their part will be. Some are not good at the science, but may be good at the writing. Let them write it up. The point is not to get each to accomplish some pre-determined hoop jumping, but to get the lab as an organization to produce one good result, just like other real labs do.
People who follow the instructions of authority, believe others should follow such instructions, and tend to believe that authority is right most or all of the time, are called authoritarian. People who hold to belief systems dictated by a hidden power with perfect judgement are some such. Those people also tend to believe/believe in other authorities judgements and power. Thus, people who hold strong religious beliefs tend to be the same people who most strongly believe in (and expect results from) the abilities of health care authorities -- doctors.
The same paradox was noted by Stanley Milgram in the Yale Experiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment A nurse was one of the people who continued to follow instructions and "shock" a subject after the subject appeared dead, just because she was told to. At first it seemed a paradox that a nurse would follow instructions that would harm another. He figured it that he was equivalent to a doctor in the nurses mind, and so she was following his instructions to the letter without evaluation, just as she was trained to do with doctors. (Nurses these days are trained differently).
SciFi hasn't been geeky/tech-savvy for some time. If it were, it'd have primarily science fiction. As it stands it has a great deal of bad, formulaic horror and way too much "supernatural" "reality" show crap for anyone to take it seriously (and we geeks insist on seriously). It doesn't matter if you play each episode 40 times a week intersperesed with all that other junk, 3 main SF programs remains far too little to justify calling the network after them.
SciFi has been dorky, not geeky. The name change just makes it more obvious. Next name change: Fy, because the suits don't want people to think that watching their fyction programs makes one sy with disappointment.
In the figurative sense certainly, by hiring an 'expert' to do their testing who knew nothing about the field, produced results that were nonsensical and pretty much conducted scientific fraud at the behest of ATFE. Proper expert testimony was provided by rocket motor manufacturers who had worked in the field for the government and/or contractors, still consulted to the government, and worked on other projects like SpaceShip 1. Why ATFE didn't see this coming is a mystery.
They also nearly blew themselves up literally. They 'required' one of the motor manufacturers to sell them motors at market price (he had initially declined). They rented a van, loaded up their rockets and headed to the desert to do some testing. They intended to prove that high powered rockets could be used to bring down an aircraft. They ignored the rules that virtually all rocketers follow regarding distance between launcher and people, rockets and motors. They launched one out of the back of the van. The back blast lit their other motors in the van. Their rented van proceeded to burn merrily to the ground. They denied it, but it was proven otherwise. They started to try to get a gag order but apparently used their one and only Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious on this rather than one the case as a whole.
As for other regulation, high powered rocketry has been well regulated all along, just as its little cousin, model rocketry, is. The rules originated with G. Harry Stine, one time range safety officer at White Sands and pioneer of model rocketry. The high powered rules evolved over time, and have been considered acceptable in development and content by the FAA, the National Fire Protection Association, and similar relevant agencies. We have been trusted for 50 years to develop and follow our own regulations suitable to these agencies. Now we can ignore the arbitrary, stifling, baseless rules concocted by ATFE (put into force without due process) and carry on another 50 years. The regulations we have in place cover all airframes and power systems up through 200,000 newtons, where the FAA's office of space transportation takes over.
The standing regulations for high powered rocketry are available the National Association of Rocketry at http://nar.org/hpcert/NARhprintro.html Only high powered motors were involved in the ruling. Model rockets (including "large model rockets", up to 3.3 pounds loaded and 4 ounces of propellant) were not involved.
As for APCP, although it produces a large amount of exhaust gas which can be channeled through a nozzle to produce thrust (see the space shuttle's boosters for an example), it burns at about the rate of a piece of paper. Thus while it might "conflagerate" it is hardly worth bothering with as an explosive. It is actually more profitable to use small model rocket motors for explosives as they are black powder.
NAR #28965, High Power Certification level 1 Rocketeer since June 1964
> we are oversubscribed around 70:1 between our customers' bandwidth and our pipe.
I assume that's theoretical. If your actual traffic was 70x your pipe you'd have a very different complaint.
So what is your actual peak usage vs. your pipe? And what's the portion of that due to high volume users? And if you throttle them, will it make enough of a difference?
Your boss assumes the problem is P2P etc., while it may well be business users (you may not have that classification, but don't tell me nobody there works from home). Or it may be people watching shifted video, and throttling watchers would be a bad move for a cable company.
I think you owe it to your boss to find out before implementing any throttle just who is going to be affected. If you just throw on a throttle without finding this out you could cost him some valuable customers and PR. Throttling may or may not be ethical, but testing before implementing is what a responsible employee would do.
"Is Red Hat's promise to 'refrain from enforcing the infringed patent' against open source a reliable contract, or a trap for the unwary?"
I don't have a clue about Red Hat's intentions, but I do know that they can't not protect its intellectual property without risk of losing rights to it. That is, they have to act to protect it in every case of infringement. They can't pick and choose who to file against. An interesting point might occur here if they attempt to act to protect by first simply requiring acknowledgement of their ownership as a sort of no-fault first step. They can pick and choose within reasonably equitable parameters what or how much they require from the infringer in each case according to profits (including potential profits) to be made by the infringer. Obviously in the case of FOSS use, there'll be no profits and so no recovery necessary.
* That's "racket" as in noise, not the criminal activity.
Cognitive map. That's the concept that your brain places you (and your position/posture) in the space you perceive. It has been localized to the hippocampus for decades. It has even been reliably recorded from rat brains that were replaying a learned maze while the rat was dreaming.
The only news here is that this study used fMRI to show what's been shown many times many ways.
"At 65,000 feet..... it would be safe from surface-to-air missiles and most aircraft."
Francis Gary Powers was shot down in his U-2 by an S-75 Dvina missile on May 1, 1960. The operating altitude for his mission was 70,000 feet. How is 65,000 safe 50 years after 70,000 isn't?
It's obviously not. On 13 September 1985 an F-15 launched an ASM-135 ASAT anti-satellite weapon from 38,000 feet and took down the Solwind satellite orbiting at an altitude of 345 miles (1,821,600 feet). The ASM-135 was built from off-the-shelf (ie. already developed, tested and in production) hardware. One can assume the shelf 25 years later to be much better stocked, and any launch platforms to be much more capable, such as the recent development of Mach 1+ missile launch capability.
With or without the "surface-to-air" in the summary replaced with "hand held" as in the original, TFA is ludicrous.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact is that a few psychologists had patients with a problem, and suddenly a large number of them were expertly qualified to treat this problem. They've done the same for years with internet use, arcade games, hacking, and a problem of the year going back decades. They act as if the thing is addictive and the person is a victim of a disease. They make big money treating people with whatever happens to be their favorite technique whether or not it works. They can't know whether it does or not because there's little to no data supporting a given treatment, they don't have to promise results, and the attrition rate is such that they'll have very few left at the end as failures and almost certainly none coming back a second time. If any do come back, they'll find that the psychologist ash moved on to their next area of expertise, the next big (income generating) addiction.
There's no doubt some people form obsessive and/or compulsive behaviors (with or without the actual disorder) over some things. But the thing is arbitrary and becomes the focus simply because it's what the person first chose to spend time with. Such a person needs treatment for their own predilection, not for being the victim of their activities. Furthermore, they treat these "addictions" as if they were just that. But an addiction has a clear medical description beyond obsessive and/or compulsive behavior. These psychologists are neither trained to determine whether the physiological changes have occurred or to treat for them if they have.
Unfortunately the largest professional organization for psychologists in the US is the same one that writes the book for making diagnoses (which can come and go with social pressures), and is comprised in majority by the psychologists whose income depends on finding (and competing for) patients -- clinical psychologists. To bring home the point of the arbitrary nature of their mutual income support system, the diagnoses they create and describe are often different from similar diagnostic instruments from elsewhere.
That sums up the reason I refused to join that particular organization.
"...instead of asking for passwords or pin numbers, a call center or bank would simply use a device on their telephone to produce a brief series of clicks in the recipient's ear to confirm the person is who they say they are."
Complete bollocks. Phones doesn't have anywhere near the reproduction characteristics for the received click to be near the same as the original. The OAE response depends on the stimulus characteristics.
And they certainly don't have the ability to return the OAE signal as anything remotely like the original in terms of frequency response, and probably aren't even sensitive enough in terms of signal pick up to even detect it. So glad to know they got funded for something that anyone with experience in the field would have told them won't work.
"'"It absolutely is worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage because we are not in a vacuum,"
How gratifying to know that the top of the energy [industry] food chain is educated enough to be aware we have an atmosphere.
As for carbon capture and *storage*, perhaps we can have Mr. Chu's address so we can use his backyard for storage. He's the first d00d of energy, he should get the first load of carbon.
"33 billion kilowatt hours of energy annually, which is approximately enough to power 2.4 million US homes (or roughly 3.1 million cars) for a year"
You can't power cars with kilowatts. If you're going to make a nonsensical unit conversion, make it good. Spam uses around 8.761 x 10^16 foot pounds, or 1.188 x 10^24 ergs, or 7.451 x 10^35 electron volts. Still working on how many parsecs it would cut off the the Kessel run.
The suggestions that straight beams could do the same are only partly right, and indicate who didn't read TFA. The concentration of the most intense part of the beam due to the curving mask and lens makes it more efficient than unaltered straight beams in creating ionized channels for a given beam strength. Something that did the same concentrating for straight beams would produce the same effect, but the fact remains that the curving mechanism would produce it as stated.
A proxy serves to protect the initiator by acting on its behalf. It represents the initiator to the source being addressed.
Lawyers are proxies for their clients.
Being represented by a lawyer is a 'sophistication' and should lead to a harsher sentence.
Lest one think that "in committing a crime" doesn't apply, consider that a person swears to tell "the whole truth", that not doing so is lying which is perjury, and that the lawyer representing the person attempts to promote one particular version of the truth, thus not "the whole truth". A lawyer perjures on behalf of their client, and the ubiquitous "or causes to" term can be applied, making the client responsible for the perjury committed by the lawyer.
I was under the impression a dimension was like a mathematical axis, i.e. infinite in two directions...?
There's no such animal outside theory. In the real universe, spacetime is curved, more or less depending upon local conditions, but definitely never geometric line straight. If it appears that way it's because either the curve is too slow, you are similarly curved, or both. At the most extreme, the theoretical 'closed' universe curves back on itself as if you lived on the inside surface of a balloon.
Taking the lead from this Einsteinian view, string theory says the other dimensions are curved also, but to the extreme -- like to the Planck length or less (the smallest possible "grain" of the universe). The difference is not quality, only in quantity. That balloon you live in? Make it the so small that in size it is to an atom as an atom is to the Earth.
Once you've bent your head around that, consider that due to the Planck stuff, and things like Hawking's idea that near a singluarity (such as a Planck scale phenomenon) time and space fold into each other, no dimension no matter how straight, is an exact integer at all scales. This is true of the usual 4, and almost certainly of the other hypothesized 7. These other than integer dimensions are said to be "fractional". From fractional dimensions comes the word "fractal". And here you thought fractals were just good for producing CGIs of clouds, mountains, explosions and so forth. They are, but it's because they also produce the appearance of the real things.
A moderate yield nuke deep in hard bedrock results in a hollow dome. Make it deep enough, below the possibility of rising to the water table. Dump in nuclear waste from reactors (nothing that can reach a critical mass). When full, detonate a small yield device in the bore hole above the dome, sealing it. This can accomplish disposal of both waste and surplus warheads.
How many recall such threats to the internet as the massive ascii storm caused by Cantor and Siegel and the like, or the sudden tsunami of traffic due to graphics being constantly broadcast by the world wide webby thingy?
Those and many other phenomena usually resulted in people running around with their hair on fire, flapping their arms and screaming DEATH OF THE INTERNET!
The majority of bandwidth is taken up by email spam and botnet traffic. Next to those URL relay traffic isn't even noticeable.
Film at 11.
"The asteroids themselves could well be left-over from the formation of the solar system."
No way. The Lagrange points are theoretical solutions to the 3 body problem. The Earth-Sun system is not 3 body. The Earth's relationship with the moon is such that their common center is outside the Earth. Fluctuations in the gravity field of the co-orbiting the Earth-moon would guarantee no permanently stable solution.
The L4 and L5 points are not gravity wells. They are the tops of gravity hills (see the top map at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point ). The slightest perturbation will result in a body at those points to orbit the point and eventually be thrown out. We have satellites at Lagrange points now and they are operated in that way. They orbit the L point, and have station keeping motors to keep them orbiting them.
The above is doubly applicable if the theorized collision scenario occurred. The moon supposedly came from the collision of the Earth and a Mars sized object. Such a collision would preclude their being any L points that remained stable throughout, making it impossible that there should be asteroids remaining in such points since the beginning of the solar system.
Earlier today I had an urge to listen to Devo's Jocko Homo from their self-produced movie. Found two copies, only to have the sound removed because a record label was claiming copywrite on the music. Hello, the music is within a movie which is copywrited by Devo Productions, how can you claim to control what is within their own movie?!?
Devo owns the rights to the movie and music, and can do whatever they want with that material and the associated rights (that someone is willing to pick up). They obviously sold, leased or otherwise signed away the rights to audio reproduction of the soundtrack and/or songs therein. They probably still own it but are sharing the reproduction rights with the record company because it is more likely to be able to make them money than if they simply retained the rights. I suspect this is because their record production capabilities are less than the label's.
The Simon Fraser studies were covered by "60 Minutes" not long ago.
Long ago, they also covered the first such computerized device. A paralyzed young woman 'rode' a motorized stationary bicycle. An electromyelogram controlled by an Apple II recorded signals from her muscles. These signals were moved to a device that she could wear which used the recorded signals to control stimulation signals sent to those muscles. This artificially controlled her legs for her allowing her to walk. She was just learning to when the story came out. She stated that she planned on being able to walk down the aisle to get married, with a year. Less than a month later Dan Rather reported on the CBS Evening News that the woman did in fact walk down the aisle using the device. That was the second time I saw Dan Rather cry on the air, the first being just after the Apollo 8 Christmas eve reading of Genesis following their first pass behind the moon.
I tried finding record of the earlier reports to find out if it was the start of the Simon Fraser work, but couldn't locate any.
There's at least two reasons the professor's method is beneficial:
1. By having to search by hand and scan by eye, he becomes more familiar with more of what's actually in the papers. His familiarity with the material gets better.
2. Repetitive scanning/searching of the papers leads to the mind partially wandering while doing so. This can result in inspiration and intuitive leaps.
Both methods together are preferable. But good luck on getting the professor to use them. You may have better luck getting him to create his own indices or tables of contents on paper to put in the binders. With his familiarity it shouldn't be too difficult.
I'd hope that the "one of the lead authors" (isn't there only one lead author?) would correct some of the misstatements in the summary.
The system digitizes the map, not the brain.
Isn't "digitizes" a gratuitous inclusion by now?
Mapping can produce a static picture of a dynamic system. The brain works by changing its structure. Thus, the "functioning" they can discern will be extremely limited. Actual functioning could be mapped by remapping the same brain after learning and such, if the analysis is sufficiently fine grained.
Best guess right now is that there are over 100 billion (100 thousand million in the British system) neurons, and even more glial cells which are implicated in neural function. Interconnection of these is such that no neuron is farther than 6 connections from any other neuron, with an average of 3 connections between. Mapping a system like that is certainly possible. Analyzing that map statistically and understanding it may follow, but only in a limited sense and probably not for some time.
The mapping system may be able to describe the interconnections physically. This will do little to help describe the non-connection interactions of neurons via electrical field effects on nearby but not physically connected dentritic trees.
Despite shortcomings in the summary and possibly in the system itself, it's a fine step forward and could add a nice tool to the brain science tool box.
This is better news than they even let on. A means to control rejection is the same as a means to control autoimmune disorders. Recent evidence supporting this is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19199937 There's a partial list of such disorders at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune_disease
Knowing the mechanism for increasing Treg leads to understanding the mechanism for controlling, thus including suppressing Treg. That would boost the body's immune response. It could control (though not cure) AIDS, and lead to treatments of such as hepatitis B or C without requiring the very side effect laden pegylated alfa interferon 2 + ribavirin treatment. Inducing autoimmnune disease has already been suggested as a cancer treatment http://www.pnas.org/content/96/10/5340.full
As explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_system an immune system is a very complex system with many components that interact. The more of these we can manipulate the closer we get to the kind of treatments suggested above.
The advice about seeking out the teacher rather than the subject matches the single best piece of advice I received or handed out in my career. In fact, I used it to disprove the previous section regarding not swimming upstream.
While getting an MHA (that's an MBA for health care industry) I was given that advice by my professor. Later I attended a conference about "consciousness" at a small college. I witnessed the conference organizer trying very hard to come to an agreement with two others, clearly from different fields, what they meant by the word "energy". I had no idea who the guy was or what he did, but I knew I wanted to learn from him. It turned out he was Karl Pribram (neuroscience), the other two being Roger Penrose (physics) and Harold Liebowitz (then president of the National Academy of Engineering). What I wanted most was to learn from someone who worked that hard to turn science into shared knowledge. So I did; a year later I was in Karl's office, having just been admitted to his psychology master's program, telling him this story. No, his eyes didn't bug out. He took it to heart and taught me how to learn as well as everything he could about the field. I was 41. I got my PhD in neuroscience 7 years later. It could have been 6, but I was working on a very interesting project (tobacco as a preventative for Parkinson's, as mentioned in "Thank You For Smoking"). I was awarded non-competitive post-docs at NIH and Yale, finishing them at 50 and joining academia
Anybody can float down stream and most do. They'll tell you that's how it works. Fuck that noise. Swimming up stream makes you stronger. Worst that can happen is you fail and end up floating around with the other drifters. But I can tell you with the confidence of experience, an elephant can fly.
Despite the quite correct statement by a few people that the millenium changed Jan 1 2001, the vast majority of people ignored that and celebrated the arrival of 2000 as the new millenium. No matter how right you are about Linux's age etc., the vast majority will completely fail to notice you and your dogmatic assertions, and will enjoy themselves in spite of you.
Organize a working lab for them. They are to decide (within your specified field) what they find interesting and want to learn about. An example from my work, someone noted that the doors on the local Walmart had IN and OUT signs, that some people tended to ignore those, and that the IN and OUT were on opposite sides on the opposite ends of the building. They wanted to know why the sides were different, and depending on the answer, seeing if that answer had anything to do with the first.
Make them responsible for the project by making yourself simply the most knowledgeable member of the lab team. Allow them every source they can think of, including any other teachers or yourself, because when people do real science they're not restricted to the one authority supervising them.
When they pick what to study, help them develop the methodology/design. Describe why you chose one in terms they can understand.
Set them collecting their data, tell them how best to analyze it, and let them go. Provide them with a template of how you want them to produce their results (APA paper format or a poster template).
Let them make their own mistakes and try to correct them. If they ask for help, give it, because you're a lab member too.
I've done this with undergrad labs, including one with 3 high school students among the 8 members. Two went to international conferences, two others got published. They were always done by a 1 hour per week, 16 week lab course, plus the necessary extra time of working in the lab.
Oh, and let them tell you what their part will be. Some are not good at the science, but may be good at the writing. Let them write it up. The point is not to get each to accomplish some pre-determined hoop jumping, but to get the lab as an organization to produce one good result, just like other real labs do.
People who follow the instructions of authority, believe others should follow such instructions, and tend to believe that authority is right most or all of the time, are called authoritarian. People who hold to belief systems dictated by a hidden power with perfect judgement are some such. Those people also tend to believe/believe in other authorities judgements and power. Thus, people who hold strong religious beliefs tend to be the same people who most strongly believe in (and expect results from) the abilities of health care authorities -- doctors.
The same paradox was noted by Stanley Milgram in the Yale Experiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment A nurse was one of the people who continued to follow instructions and "shock" a subject after the subject appeared dead, just because she was told to. At first it seemed a paradox that a nurse would follow instructions that would harm another. He figured it that he was equivalent to a doctor in the nurses mind, and so she was following his instructions to the letter without evaluation, just as she was trained to do with doctors. (Nurses these days are trained differently).
SciFi hasn't been geeky/tech-savvy for some time. If it were, it'd have primarily science fiction. As it stands it has a great deal of bad, formulaic horror and way too much "supernatural" "reality" show crap for anyone to take it seriously (and we geeks insist on seriously). It doesn't matter if you play each episode 40 times a week intersperesed with all that other junk, 3 main SF programs remains far too little to justify calling the network after them.
SciFi has been dorky, not geeky. The name change just makes it more obvious. Next name change: Fy, because the suits don't want people to think that watching their fyction programs makes one sy with disappointment.
In the figurative sense certainly, by hiring an 'expert' to do their testing who knew nothing about the field, produced results that were nonsensical and pretty much conducted scientific fraud at the behest of ATFE. Proper expert testimony was provided by rocket motor manufacturers who had worked in the field for the government and/or contractors, still consulted to the government, and worked on other projects like SpaceShip 1. Why ATFE didn't see this coming is a mystery.
They also nearly blew themselves up literally. They 'required' one of the motor manufacturers to sell them motors at market price (he had initially declined). They rented a van, loaded up their rockets and headed to the desert to do some testing. They intended to prove that high powered rockets could be used to bring down an aircraft. They ignored the rules that virtually all rocketers follow regarding distance between launcher and people, rockets and motors. They launched one out of the back of the van. The back blast lit their other motors in the van. Their rented van proceeded to burn merrily to the ground. They denied it, but it was proven otherwise. They started to try to get a gag order but apparently used their one and only Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious on this rather than one the case as a whole.
As for other regulation, high powered rocketry has been well regulated all along, just as its little cousin, model rocketry, is. The rules originated with G. Harry Stine, one time range safety officer at White Sands and pioneer of model rocketry. The high powered rules evolved over time, and have been considered acceptable in development and content by the FAA, the National Fire Protection Association, and similar relevant agencies. We have been trusted for 50 years to develop and follow our own regulations suitable to these agencies. Now we can ignore the arbitrary, stifling, baseless rules concocted by ATFE (put into force without due process) and carry on another 50 years. The regulations we have in place cover all airframes and power systems up through 200,000 newtons, where the FAA's office of space transportation takes over.
The standing regulations for high powered rocketry are available the National Association of Rocketry at http://nar.org/hpcert/NARhprintro.html Only high powered motors were involved in the ruling. Model rockets (including "large model rockets", up to 3.3 pounds loaded and 4 ounces of propellant) were not involved.
As for APCP, although it produces a large amount of exhaust gas which can be channeled through a nozzle to produce thrust (see the space shuttle's boosters for an example), it burns at about the rate of a piece of paper. Thus while it might "conflagerate" it is hardly worth bothering with as an explosive. It is actually more profitable to use small model rocket motors for explosives as they are black powder.
NAR #28965, High Power Certification level 1
Rocketeer since June 1964
> we are oversubscribed around 70:1 between our customers' bandwidth and our pipe.
I assume that's theoretical. If your actual traffic was 70x your pipe you'd have a very different complaint.
So what is your actual peak usage vs. your pipe? And what's the portion of that due to high volume users? And if you throttle them, will it make enough of a difference?
Your boss assumes the problem is P2P etc., while it may well be business users (you may not have that classification, but don't tell me nobody there works from home). Or it may be people watching shifted video, and throttling watchers would be a bad move for a cable company.
I think you owe it to your boss to find out before implementing any throttle just who is going to be affected. If you just throw on a throttle without finding this out you could cost him some valuable customers and PR. Throttling may or may not be ethical, but testing before implementing is what a responsible employee would do.
"Is Red Hat's promise to 'refrain from enforcing the infringed patent' against open source a reliable contract, or a trap for the unwary?"
I don't have a clue about Red Hat's intentions, but I do know that they can't not protect its intellectual property without risk of losing rights to it. That is, they have to act to protect it in every case of infringement. They can't pick and choose who to file against. An interesting point might occur here if they attempt to act to protect by first simply requiring acknowledgement of their ownership as a sort of no-fault first step. They can pick and choose within reasonably equitable parameters what or how much they require from the infringer in each case according to profits (including potential profits) to be made by the infringer. Obviously in the case of FOSS use, there'll be no profits and so no recovery necessary.
* That's "racket" as in noise, not the criminal activity.
Cognitive map. That's the concept that your brain places you (and your position/posture) in the space you perceive. It has been localized to the hippocampus for decades. It has even been reliably recorded from rat brains that were replaying a learned maze while the rat was dreaming.
The only news here is that this study used fMRI to show what's been shown many times many ways.
"At 65,000 feet ..... it would be safe from surface-to-air missiles and most aircraft."
Francis Gary Powers was shot down in his U-2 by an S-75 Dvina missile on May 1, 1960. The operating altitude for his mission was 70,000 feet. How is 65,000 safe 50 years after 70,000 isn't?
It's obviously not. On 13 September 1985 an F-15 launched an ASM-135 ASAT anti-satellite weapon from 38,000 feet and took down the Solwind satellite orbiting at an altitude of 345 miles (1,821,600 feet). The ASM-135 was built from off-the-shelf (ie. already developed, tested and in production) hardware. One can assume the shelf 25 years later to be much better stocked, and any launch platforms to be much more capable, such as the recent development of Mach 1+ missile launch capability.
With or without the "surface-to-air" in the summary replaced with "hand held" as in the original, TFA is ludicrous.