The order of magnitude under budget sounded familiar. Jefferson Lab Accelerator made a similar statement about at least some parts of the machine when they announced they had completed building and testing it and it was ready to fire up, ahead of schedule and under budget. I remembered they used government surplus and off-the-shelf parts as much as they could, but I didn't pay attention to the software. So I looked it up. HP-UX from 1987 to 2004, Red Hat since 2004. They talk about open source as a rationale, and specifically mention the Mozilla programs: http://users.cosylab.com/~mpelko/PCaPAC08/papers/mox03.pdf
What the heck, might as well add that contingency. It doesn't suggest someone off the bastard, just that if he happens to be cold when turned in, the offer's still good. All the more fear factor added to the offense-as-defense.
The only salary consideration I'd call relevant was whether it was enough to live on. The actual salary and the time you'll be there aren't going to add up to much.
The main reason for choosing an internship should be how it looks on your resume/vita. Consider your future employment offers if you have an entry that says JPL as compared to that entry saying Showa-Denko Heavy Motor Works. You'd do better to take the first with no pay as opposed to the latter with a "big" though short-lived salary.
Also consider what you'd be likely to gain in terms of experience in what you want to do. The latter may in fact be more to your interest.
Based in Bethesda MD. They have many satellite offices as well as many individuals who telecommute some or all of the time. Since they deal with health care data they have to conform to HIPAA standards. They rely on their secure remote access system being available as much as possible. See if their IT department can share its policy statement.
The foldable you mention is from PowerFilm. They make many different devices as well as components for building your own. http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/products/portable%20and%20remote/index.html I went the build-your-own route using their thin-film cells. I needed a power source for a laptop in the field, so I put one together that I could epoxy to the laptop lid. It's still on duty 4 years later. I also needed a source on board the ultimate portable device -- a rocket weighing less than 2kg total and capable of handling a vertical acceleration of 20 G to Mach 1+, supplying constant high grade power to the recording altimeter that also controlled the parachute ejection system. That system has flown over 20 times. I put their stuff through some hellacious stress testing and the only failures I've had were my fault.
Can anyone explain how commenting on USAF attempting to solve a problem by redefining it to suit its own purposes by pointing out (humorously, which doesn't seem to be at issue) two other instances if it doing the same (and failing, also apparently not at issue) is off topic?
People had to sit still and accept any and all forms of communication coming to them via the airwaves and wires for decades. Any anger generated was vented uselessly into the air and/or kept bottled up inside. Suddenly they were given the ability to talk back to the box and have said talk back actually reach a human. The frustration of years gone by will probably continue at least as long as people who survived the suck-it-up decades exist.
Why shouldn't it? They seem to do rather well when they decide to redefine things.
After an unfortunate incident in New Mexico involving something that definitely wasn't a UFO, they produced Air Force Regulation 200-2, the rules for reporting UFOs, including as a matter of course the necessary definitions of all things UFOish. With that regulation firmly in place, they created Project Blue Book to investigate UFOs. Blue Book concluded, as they always have before and after Blue Book, that UFOs don't exist. Having defined UFOs out of existence, they maintain AFR 200-2 to keep UFOs defined away.
Should any UFOs happen to appear and be shown to actually exist, we can only conclude that the owner/operator of such a craft has either not yet heard of AFR 200-2, or is unable to read it. Defending the planet then will not require an ex-fighter pilot US president ordering a computer virus to be delivered to their mothership. Instead, all that will need to be done is establish communication and reading AFR 200-2 (and possibly the Blue Book conclusion studies) to them.
A more prosaic example is the Air Force manual regarding testing of fuels and the components therein. They define "mogas" (motor vehicle gasoline) as having too little benzene to be a health risk. The equivalent civilian fuel contains 100 to 1000 times more benzene than the level considered a health risk. This works so well that USAF orders its mogas from the same civilian suppliers that deliver to gas stations, but their redefinition protects service members working on fuel systems from benzene exposure. Unfortunately, civilian employees get hazardous duty pay for working in situations where they're exposed to benzene in mogas, because their labor union prevents the AF testing manual and its definitions from protecting them adequately.
"A refrigerator-sized tank of toxic ammonia, tossed from the international space station last year, is expected to hit earth tomorrow afternoon or evening."
Written for maximum impact at the expense of accuracy. Frinstance: Toxic ammonia vs. what? Inert, organism-friendly ammonia? The modifier is as useful as adding "wet" to water.
The distinction would matter if the tank were going to land intact. As TFA states it'll break up during reentry. Any ammonia inside will be explosively released due to reentry heat increasing the pressure, the fact that the first break will destroy any aerodynamic stability and rip the tank and components to shreds nearly instantly, and/or the ammonia being sucked out through the first breach by the low pressure at high altitude and the vacuum created by the air speed.
But that makes the spokescritter's point re: finding pieces moot and the comment mostly FUD. Any pieces will be chunks of metal, possibly with sharp edges but most likely rounded by reentry heat.
To their credit, unlike many previous articles, TFA makes the attempt to indicate the probability of sea vs. land impact rather than run with the FUD hype of the latter alone.
The technical details raised in response are all correct, and they or other solutions existed at the time. The existence of technical capabilities do not influence the probabilities of humans to use them. When it comes to security, in the absence of strict guidelines such as HIPAA (which is relevant to patients but irrelevant to biomedical but non-patient data) people often choose to err on the side of more security.
"...an F note impossible to play with the other notes on the guitar."
For every tuning? Every string is independent and can be tuned to any note. Nor does a given string position require that the normally used string be installed there. And just because it's a 12 string doesn't mean the secondary strings have to be tuned to the note, octave, or any given relationship since they're equally independent. All 12 positions can be filled with any string and that string tuned anywhere within the range in which it maintains its harmonics and their combined tension is balanced by the neck tension.
That's all true, correct and academic. The following is an educated guess and attempt, but practical.
Using normal guitar tuning (EADGBE): Middle finger, second string, third fret. Index finger, third string, second fret. Ring finger, fourth string, third fret. Little finger, fifth string, fourth fret.* Thumb on first string, third fret. Roll wrist with knuckles towards tuning keys and put side of index finger across sixth string, first fret. The last line requires a bit of flexibility, especially to hold. Since it doesn't have to be sustained beyond that one chord, it can be forced. I contend that's exactly what Harrison is doing because the opening chord is slightly sharp, as though being stretched or the tremlo bar pulled, and such forcing will bend the neck back, sharpening the notes. The central part of the chord (up through *) is fairly well known. Hold the finger positions and slide up 4 frets. Most recognizable uses are Jimi Hendrix's Purple Haze and Foxy Lady. That was by experience and ear. Had they given the actual notes I could have cheated and used any of several fretting programs that let you put in a series of notes and a tuning and gives back one or more fingerings.
I've worked with people during various research projects who decided to encrypt, for some very good reasons. I've had one admin die, and one researcher have a stroke. In both cases they had information necessary for the project that nobody else could get to, even when their hard drives were retrieved. The results are that after several years, the stuff is still sitting somewhere unusable because the people who attempted to get to it were stymied. Enforcing PGP on an entire network could multiply this problem. I would think that enforcing PGP on users not needing it would be a royal pain for them.
What we've done and thought of since:
Have only those with sensitive information encrypt. Have them work on machines not connected to the net. If they need net access, have them connect only for the time necessary, and mandate pre-encryption back ups prior to connecting.
Preferred, but resisted, keep the sensitive machines off the net and have the researchers connect to the net via a different machine without the sensitive info on it. If they want to use it for transfers of such info, make them use sneakernet between the sensitive and connected machines. In this scenario, they only need PGP for what they're going to transfer to the connected machine and thus to outside. Both admins and researchers expect full connectivity throughout their net, but the best security is a nackered line.
I use the sneakernet method exclusively. What I transfer when necessary is hundreds of MB to tens of GB of data. It takes me 10 to 30 minutes to encrypt, burn the data to DVDs and carry it to the connected machine. Like most researchers, I'm busy and don't want to spend my time doing this, but I have assistants I can put the task on.
"Any excess money would be redistributed based on the wishes of the Internet community"
They're going to be working with 6 figure dollar amounts, and they're going to redistribute what's (1*) "left over" (people who get that deep into cash tend to find there's never any left over) and (2*) they're going to base the decision on the opinions of the ultimate peanut gallery.
The second point lends the amount of credence to the first point that it is due.
"Is it a sensible move for a venture capital firm that depends on a healthy Open Source community to lock it out?"
They didn't. TFA states several moved to the new project with the VC. Since there's a backer, they should be able to say what they support. If they wish to change, they can. If others want to change with them, they can, and have. If others don't want to, simply because the backer closed the old project, they don't have to. They don't have to grow up and accept the fact they'd been participating in a VC funded project either. But both would be beneficial. Nothing is stopping the others from continuing the old project unfunded except wasting time whining about it.
If you're interested in the topic, do what the parent is apparently incapable of doing: a literature review!
That's a pretty well developed pot/kettle correlation effect you've got there. Hope you enjoy it.
FFR is the response in the auditory system to a continuous stimulus while while the frequency remains constant or while changing (it's trivial in the former, interesting in the latter). It's produced by the signal from the hair cells to the olivary nucleus. It represents the fact that the hair cells transduce the incoming frequencies in a nearly analog fashion. They proceed along the converging cochlea, and as they get smaller, respond to higher frequencies. It is measured as the FFR from the ear to the primary auditory cortex.
That has nothing to do with binaural beat. The latter is an artifact of beat frequency. In order to produce effects detectable by and interesting to known EEG frequencies, the beat frequency, ie. the difference between the two tones, must be very low. Typically the beat frequency is set at something like 4 to 7 Hz to induce theta, 7 to 12 for alpha, 12 to 20 for beta (the precise numbers vary wildly between opinions for no good reason). The beat frequency is too low for the hair cells to react to. There is no FFR below 20 Hz. There can be two simultaneous responses, at say 440 Hz A and 450 Hz. There are two FFRs to these, A beat pattern can be seen if the instrument detects signals from the two frequencies. That only means the instrument is detecting two frequencies that interfere in the context of the instrument. It does not mean there is such a frequency, that the auditory system can respond to a 10 Hz signal (which doesn't actually exist), or that a signal is being induced by the frequencies presented.
Not only can I do a literature search, I can trim down the collected works by excluding the irrelevant, as is FFR. I did it 6 years ago, and I did it now. I can do this because I know enough about the subject to know whether something is pertinent or whether it just happens to have some words and/or phenomena that are similar, but explicate a subject entirely different from that which is under examination. If you'd done a literature search on the material I was writing about, for instance the work from TMI, you'd find that the observed induced power changes happened over a much wider area than the primary auditory cortex (ie. not FFR).
In summary, BB != FFR. We studied the former using beat frequencies well below the response range of the auditory system, and thus produce FFR. In the exceedingly unlikely event we happened to pick up beat frequency induced changes in FFR, it begs the question as to why we saw only it when the subject was wearing an EEG cap with headphones over it, as opposed to the complete lack of response to the same tones presented to the same people when using the air conduction auditory stimulus mechanism.
To respond to the previous follow-up (hellgate (85557)), the results are maintained my colleague that runs the lab at U.Va. Wise: http://people.uvawise.edu/jeh2b/ The presentation was at the meeting of the Society of Psychophysiological Research (SPR), October 2002.
Nerve conduction can change in speed, or in voltage, or both. What it affects is a different matter.
It's well known that aging causes perceptual slowing. Old people drive slow because things are coming at them faster than they did at the same speed when they were younger. However, cognitive skills such as problem solving do not change speed with aging.
Pulling them apart is particularly difficult because people try to test things with reaction time equipment. What's perceptual, what's cognitive and what's motor speed?
If you want to rip an enormous hole in the assumption TFA is based on, point at someone with very little myelination anywhere, like say, http://www.itbhu.org/chronicle/images/jun.07/stephenhawking.JPG Then get the aging people at UCLA to try to think faster than him.
BTW, there are far more differences in amount of myelination between groups of people tested according to things like reaction to pain, hypnotizability, attentional abilities/deficits and such, than any differences that occur due to aging in any given normal brain (ie. not undergoing some clinically relevant change such as in the example above).
If you started from a different set of assumptions, you'd conclude that as people get older, they become less conscious. After all, anesthesia produces changes in neurons by changing the reactivity of myelin, and nerve conduction slows with increased anesthesia.
In acoustics, two beats of nearly the same frequency interfere to produce a change in summed volume of a period equal to the difference between the two frequencies. At TMI, they found that if they played sine waves into each ear of a slightly different frequency, they could detect an increase in EEG power at the beat frequency. I was so taken with an article in OMNI on TMI that I saved it for over a decade until I started studying EEG research under Karl Pribram.
Once I started studying it, a glaring error came to mind. We had to put subjects in a Gaussian cage to shield them from stray signals from the heaters and pumps for the swimming pool elsewhere in the building our lab was at. These caused induced currents in the EEG. If that was necessary, how could they justify putting electromagenticially driven headphones on top an EEG cap?
To first pull things apart, I tested a single subject -- a styrofoam head (a wig stand) with EEG cap and headphones on it. I was able to show power increases at precisely the same frequencies as the beat signal. (I'd first suggested using a bowl of Jell-O. Karl suggested not to, since he'd found increases in alpha waves in a bowl of Jell-O when shaken. No, I don't know why. Neither did Karl. We just thought it was extremely cool.)
To make it more official, I helped teach some students at University of Virginia at Wise to run EEG research. Their EEG system could produce sound remotely in a closed box and transmit it via air conduction up long plastic tubes into the ears -- no electromagnets anywhere near the head. They ran it this was as well as the traditional Monroe way (headphones on top of EEG cap). In the each of the same subjects, the traditional method produced power increases at the beat frequency. With air conduction stimuli, no changes were observed.
My two greatest joys in science are having undergrads produce results presented at international conferences, and in bursting the bubbles of old farts in the field. This particular project resulted in both. Not only did TMI present several pieces of research as valid, but many other people used the same set up and got stuff published elsewhere. Go to PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez and put in "binaural beat" to get the relevant results (and some not relevant, but they're easy to tell apart).
Now, you'd think that once results are presented that show it's bogus, people would quit. Not so. We did the work on 2002. Check the dates on the PubMed results. Now, that's kind of fraudulent, but more a sign that there's way too many people publishing way too many things in way too many places to be able to keep track of everything. OTOH, our work isn't in PubMed because it was a conference presentation.
What is fraudulent is the many places that produce all sorts of new agey junk based on binaural beat, claiming there's scientific evidence, but not ever quoting any, whether the original well done but slightly fatally flawed TMI work, or any subsequent. Also fairly fraudulent by TMI and all the others is claims that specific frequency differences can be used to produce specific changes such as, oh hell, here's just a sampling from TMI: http://monroeinstitute.com/store/home.php
I try to go easy on the scientific community when it comes to possible fraud claims in this area. To their credit, there used to be many more people producing work in this field, including some at U. Va. itself. In fact some from U/
There'll be enough signal as well as noise regarding felony conviction vs. senate election and so forth. I've got a different angle:
If Stevens is guilty, then the oil company/lobby/unnamed source is too. Said 'too' is undoubtedly backed by big money (of at least buy-a-Senator amounts). As a sentence, whether from the senate building or a jail cell, Stevens should be made to administer an agency that uses money from 'too' to renovate everybody else's houses. To add a touch of irony, the covered renovations should only be those which reduce oil consumption.
Sure it's silly. So's the assumption that Stevens will suffer any ill effects of any sentence. He's too rich for that to happen.
Indiana resident here: since 2005 all of Indiana observes DST, including Lafayette.
Thanks for the update. Been away a while. Our numbers were from 10 years prior to the switch to DST. I'd be interested to know whether the admission number changes now match other areas. Unfortunately neither of us are still in that business.
You can say "should be prepared to spend the rest of their lives there", and get hero types willing to die for the cause. Noble, but fatalistic.
You can say "and don't have to come back", and get cranky, hard to work with, independent pioneers who are willing to live for the cause. A pain in the ass, but realistic.
Develop self-replicating environmental mechanisms that will make it possible for people to stay and there will be more volunteers than can possibly be carried there by all the proposed lifters.
"Please tell me Mr. Sagan, are we ever going to get out of this planet alive?" -- Planet Earth Rock & Roll Orchestra
An area of Indiana around Lafayette (and Purdue University) doesn't observe DST. They stay the same all year while the areas around them switch back and forth. They suffer no ill effects from not changing their clocks twice a year. The further suffer no ill effects due to different amounts of light and darkness compared to their stable time system. Like the rest of the planet, those that need to resort to a world-wide time standard use Greenwich/Zulu. Once again, no ill effects of keeping the same time difference between their time standard and Greenwich/Zulu have been observed.
I mention no ill effects because my ex-wife, who ran a substance abuse treatment center in Lafayette, and I, running one in Virginia, compared daily intake numbers for three years. Every fall, the weekend after time changed in Virginia, we had a 250% increase in admissions. She saw no such change. As to whether a sudden smack to the diurnal rhythm forcing one into crisis and so into treatment is an ill effect or a beneficial effect remains open for discussion. The vast majority of the people in the Lafayette area will continue to not care.
What they prevented was an association of the memory for the event and the "trauma", which is pain. They tested for reactions associated with the pain. Some say there is no memory for pain, only for painful events. I disagree in that some people retain some memory of pain, and a few retain it well, while most retain memory of the event and have an association to an implicit (non-conscious) memory of pain. They managed to prevent more so what often doesn't happen anyway.
The only thing they *could* have tested was association to the pain. To test for the memory of the event they'd have had to ask the mice what they recalled. I'm pretty sure they didn't. Doing so would imply they expected the mice to answer.
Can someone please explain how I can upgrady to FF3.1 from 2.07 without looking my history, book marks and passwords?
I tried IE 6 to FF2 at one time, and it worked fine. Luckily all my links to external stuff was in my head or relatively meaningles. When I tried FF3 in top of FF2, all my saved links, history, settings and such went away. I look through the FAQs and HOW TOs and the various forums, and figured oyt that FF suffers from the same problem lots of other tech companies do -- the programmers who happen to know the most about the overall project get tasked with writing the manual. Knowing a lot and being able to explain it well to not correlate, exscept something negatively. FF needs a clearer, easier to navigate and find things in a, instructional flowchart. If there is one, they've managed to hide it well, another symptom of having programmers in charge of documentation. They're mind sets are prefaced with "well you should already know" and "all you have to do is" X, Y or Y', if X then Z, W, download ACB from D*; if Y' then close all programs, download DEFG installer, run it, it will put I on your hard drive which you can use to install ABC which will ask a lot of questions, start to do something, find an error and loop around to ABC and have it ask the same questions so it can loop again.
If I'm mistaken and FF3 can do this, that is upgrade the core without screwing up the external files or losing them completely, please let me know. I can read legal do uments easier than I can read FF's documentation, because the latter doesn't assume you already know everything, which if you did would make documentation unnecessary. The writers are stiill working, so they're still needed. If they would please write for their audience rather than themslves, they might serve to spread FF a lot more.
Slashdot Mirror
The order of magnitude under budget sounded familiar. Jefferson Lab Accelerator made a similar statement about at least some parts of the machine when they announced they had completed building and testing it and it was ready to fire up, ahead of schedule and under budget. I remembered they used government surplus and off-the-shelf parts as much as they could, but I didn't pay attention to the software. So I looked it up. HP-UX from 1987 to 2004, Red Hat since 2004. They talk about open source as a rationale, and specifically mention the Mozilla programs: http://users.cosylab.com/~mpelko/PCaPAC08/papers/mox03.pdf
What the heck, might as well add that contingency. It doesn't suggest someone off the bastard, just that if he happens to be cold when turned in, the offer's still good. All the more fear factor added to the offense-as-defense.
The only salary consideration I'd call relevant was whether it was enough to live on. The actual salary and the time you'll be there aren't going to add up to much.
The main reason for choosing an internship should be how it looks on your resume/vita. Consider your future employment offers if you have an entry that says JPL as compared to that entry saying Showa-Denko Heavy Motor Works. You'd do better to take the first with no pay as opposed to the latter with a "big" though short-lived salary.
Also consider what you'd be likely to gain in terms of experience in what you want to do. The latter may in fact be more to your interest.
Not fictional in and of itself, but as a doomsday device it is.
Based in Bethesda MD. They have many satellite offices as well as many individuals who telecommute some or all of the time. Since they deal with health care data they have to conform to HIPAA standards. They rely on their secure remote access system being available as much as possible. See if their IT department can share its policy statement.
The foldable you mention is from PowerFilm. They make many different devices as well as components for building your own. http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/products/portable%20and%20remote/index.html
I went the build-your-own route using their thin-film cells. I needed a power source for a laptop in the field, so I put one together that I could epoxy to the laptop lid. It's still on duty 4 years later. I also needed a source on board the ultimate portable device -- a rocket weighing less than 2kg total and capable of handling a vertical acceleration of 20 G to Mach 1+, supplying constant high grade power to the recording altimeter that also controlled the parachute ejection system. That system has flown over 20 times. I put their stuff through some hellacious stress testing and the only failures I've had were my fault.
Can anyone explain how commenting on USAF attempting to solve a problem by redefining it to suit its own purposes by pointing out (humorously, which doesn't seem to be at issue) two other instances if it doing the same (and failing, also apparently not at issue) is off topic?
People had to sit still and accept any and all forms of communication coming to them via the airwaves and wires for decades. Any anger generated was vented uselessly into the air and/or kept bottled up inside. Suddenly they were given the ability to talk back to the box and have said talk back actually reach a human. The frustration of years gone by will probably continue at least as long as people who survived the suck-it-up decades exist.
"I'm sure that'll work out really well for them."
Why shouldn't it? They seem to do rather well when they decide to redefine things.
After an unfortunate incident in New Mexico involving something that definitely wasn't a UFO, they produced Air Force Regulation 200-2, the rules for reporting UFOs, including as a matter of course the necessary definitions of all things UFOish. With that regulation firmly in place, they created Project Blue Book to investigate UFOs. Blue Book concluded, as they always have before and after Blue Book, that UFOs don't exist. Having defined UFOs out of existence, they maintain AFR 200-2 to keep UFOs defined away.
Should any UFOs happen to appear and be shown to actually exist, we can only conclude that the owner/operator of such a craft has either not yet heard of AFR 200-2, or is unable to read it. Defending the planet then will not require an ex-fighter pilot US president ordering a computer virus to be delivered to their mothership. Instead, all that will need to be done is establish communication and reading AFR 200-2 (and possibly the Blue Book conclusion studies) to them.
A more prosaic example is the Air Force manual regarding testing of fuels and the components therein. They define "mogas" (motor vehicle gasoline) as having too little benzene to be a health risk. The equivalent civilian fuel contains 100 to 1000 times more benzene than the level considered a health risk. This works so well that USAF orders its mogas from the same civilian suppliers that deliver to gas stations, but their redefinition protects service members working on fuel systems from benzene exposure. Unfortunately, civilian employees get hazardous duty pay for working in situations where they're exposed to benzene in mogas, because their labor union prevents the AF testing manual and its definitions from protecting them adequately.
Five pound ball peen hard drive silencer.
Apply directly to the hard drive.
Apply directly to the hard drive.
Apply directly to the hard drive.
Repeat until hard drive is silent.
"A refrigerator-sized tank of toxic ammonia, tossed from the international space station last year, is expected to hit earth tomorrow afternoon or evening."
Written for maximum impact at the expense of accuracy. Frinstance: Toxic ammonia vs. what? Inert, organism-friendly ammonia? The modifier is as useful as adding "wet" to water.
The distinction would matter if the tank were going to land intact. As TFA states it'll break up during reentry. Any ammonia inside will be explosively released due to reentry heat increasing the pressure, the fact that the first break will destroy any aerodynamic stability and rip the tank and components to shreds nearly instantly, and/or the ammonia being sucked out through the first breach by the low pressure at high altitude and the vacuum created by the air speed.
But that makes the spokescritter's point re: finding pieces moot and the comment mostly FUD. Any pieces will be chunks of metal, possibly with sharp edges but most likely rounded by reentry heat.
To their credit, unlike many previous articles, TFA makes the attempt to indicate the probability of sea vs. land impact rather than run with the FUD hype of the latter alone.
The technical details raised in response are all correct, and they or other solutions existed at the time. The existence of technical capabilities do not influence the probabilities of humans to use them. When it comes to security, in the absence of strict guidelines such as HIPAA (which is relevant to patients but irrelevant to biomedical but non-patient data) people often choose to err on the side of more security.
"...an F note impossible to play with the other notes on the guitar."
For every tuning? Every string is independent and can be tuned to any note. Nor does a given string position require that the normally used string be installed there. And just because it's a 12 string doesn't mean the secondary strings have to be tuned to the note, octave, or any given relationship since they're equally independent. All 12 positions can be filled with any string and that string tuned anywhere within the range in which it maintains its harmonics and their combined tension is balanced by the neck tension.
That's all true, correct and academic. The following is an educated guess and attempt, but practical.
Using normal guitar tuning (EADGBE):
Middle finger, second string, third fret.
Index finger, third string, second fret.
Ring finger, fourth string, third fret.
Little finger, fifth string, fourth fret.*
Thumb on first string, third fret.
Roll wrist with knuckles towards tuning keys and put side of index finger across sixth string, first fret.
The last line requires a bit of flexibility, especially to hold. Since it doesn't have to be sustained beyond that one chord, it can be forced. I contend that's exactly what Harrison is doing because the opening chord is slightly sharp, as though being stretched or the tremlo bar pulled, and such forcing will bend the neck back, sharpening the notes.
The central part of the chord (up through *) is fairly well known. Hold the finger positions and slide up 4 frets. Most recognizable uses are Jimi Hendrix's Purple Haze and Foxy Lady.
That was by experience and ear. Had they given the actual notes I could have cheated and used any of several fretting programs that let you put in a series of notes and a tuning and gives back one or more fingerings.
I've worked with people during various research projects who decided to encrypt, for some very good reasons. I've had one admin die, and one researcher have a stroke. In both cases they had information necessary for the project that nobody else could get to, even when their hard drives were retrieved. The results are that after several years, the stuff is still sitting somewhere unusable because the people who attempted to get to it were stymied. Enforcing PGP on an entire network could multiply this problem. I would think that enforcing PGP on users not needing it would be a royal pain for them.
What we've done and thought of since:
Have only those with sensitive information encrypt. Have them work on machines not connected to the net. If they need net access, have them connect only for the time necessary, and mandate pre-encryption back ups prior to connecting.
Preferred, but resisted, keep the sensitive machines off the net and have the researchers connect to the net via a different machine without the sensitive info on it. If they want to use it for transfers of such info, make them use sneakernet between the sensitive and connected machines. In this scenario, they only need PGP for what they're going to transfer to the connected machine and thus to outside. Both admins and researchers expect full connectivity throughout their net, but the best security is a nackered line.
I use the sneakernet method exclusively. What I transfer when necessary is hundreds of MB to tens of GB of data. It takes me 10 to 30 minutes to encrypt, burn the data to DVDs and carry it to the connected machine. Like most researchers, I'm busy and don't want to spend my time doing this, but I have assistants I can put the task on.
For two* very good reasons:
"Any excess money would be redistributed based on the wishes of the Internet community"
They're going to be working with 6 figure dollar amounts, and they're going to redistribute what's (1*) "left over" (people who get that deep into cash tend to find there's never any left over) and (2*) they're going to base the decision on the opinions of the ultimate peanut gallery.
The second point lends the amount of credence to the first point that it is due.
"Is it a sensible move for a venture capital firm that depends on a healthy Open Source community to lock it out?"
They didn't. TFA states several moved to the new project with the VC. Since there's a backer, they should be able to say what they support. If they wish to change, they can. If others want to change with them, they can, and have. If others don't want to, simply because the backer closed the old project, they don't have to. They don't have to grow up and accept the fact they'd been participating in a VC funded project either. But both would be beneficial. Nothing is stopping the others from continuing the old project unfunded except wasting time whining about it.
Frequency-following responses are pretty well established. How the poster can claim otherwise is beyond me.
This paper from the 1970's addresses the problems the parent claims have simply gone unnoticed: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/3951/1222
If you're interested in the topic, do what the parent is apparently incapable of doing: a literature review!
That's a pretty well developed pot/kettle correlation effect you've got there. Hope you enjoy it.
FFR is the response in the auditory system to a continuous stimulus while while the frequency remains constant or while changing (it's trivial in the former, interesting in the latter). It's produced by the signal from the hair cells to the olivary nucleus. It represents the fact that the hair cells transduce the incoming frequencies in a nearly analog fashion. They proceed along the converging cochlea, and as they get smaller, respond to higher frequencies. It is measured as the FFR from the ear to the primary auditory cortex.
That has nothing to do with binaural beat. The latter is an artifact of beat frequency. In order to produce effects detectable by and interesting to known EEG frequencies, the beat frequency, ie. the difference between the two tones, must be very low. Typically the beat frequency is set at something like 4 to 7 Hz to induce theta, 7 to 12 for alpha, 12 to 20 for beta (the precise numbers vary wildly between opinions for no good reason). The beat frequency is too low for the hair cells to react to. There is no FFR below 20 Hz. There can be two simultaneous responses, at say 440 Hz A and 450 Hz. There are two FFRs to these, A beat pattern can be seen if the instrument detects signals from the two frequencies. That only means the instrument is detecting two frequencies that interfere in the context of the instrument. It does not mean there is such a frequency, that the auditory system can respond to a 10 Hz signal (which doesn't actually exist), or that a signal is being induced by the frequencies presented.
Not only can I do a literature search, I can trim down the collected works by excluding the irrelevant, as is FFR. I did it 6 years ago, and I did it now. I can do this because I know enough about the subject to know whether something is pertinent or whether it just happens to have some words and/or phenomena that are similar, but explicate a subject entirely different from that which is under examination. If you'd done a literature search on the material I was writing about, for instance the work from TMI, you'd find that the observed induced power changes happened over a much wider area than the primary auditory cortex (ie. not FFR).
In summary, BB != FFR. We studied the former using beat frequencies well below the response range of the auditory system, and thus produce FFR. In the exceedingly unlikely event we happened to pick up beat frequency induced changes in FFR, it begs the question as to why we saw only it when the subject was wearing an EEG cap with headphones over it, as opposed to the complete lack of response to the same tones presented to the same people when using the air conduction auditory stimulus mechanism.
To respond to the previous follow-up (hellgate (85557)), the results are maintained my colleague that runs the lab at U.Va. Wise: http://people.uvawise.edu/jeh2b/ The presentation was at the meeting of the Society of Psychophysiological Research (SPR), October 2002.
Nerve conduction can change in speed, or in voltage, or both. What it affects is a different matter.
It's well known that aging causes perceptual slowing. Old people drive slow because things are coming at them faster than they did at the same speed when they were younger. However, cognitive skills such as problem solving do not change speed with aging.
Pulling them apart is particularly difficult because people try to test things with reaction time equipment. What's perceptual, what's cognitive and what's motor speed?
If you want to rip an enormous hole in the assumption TFA is based on, point at someone with very little myelination anywhere, like say, http://www.itbhu.org/chronicle/images/jun.07/stephenhawking.JPG
Then get the aging people at UCLA to try to think faster than him.
BTW, there are far more differences in amount of myelination between groups of people tested according to things like reaction to pain, hypnotizability, attentional abilities/deficits and such, than any differences that occur due to aging in any given normal brain (ie. not undergoing some clinically relevant change such as in the example above).
If you started from a different set of assumptions, you'd conclude that as people get older, they become less conscious. After all, anesthesia produces changes in neurons by changing the reactivity of myelin, and nerve conduction slows with increased anesthesia.
Not fraud, because they truly believed what they saw and their publications supported it. And then it went far beyond the source.
Binaural Beat, or EEG "beat frequency" brain stimulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_frequency (see Binaural Beat section), as originated at The Monroe Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_institute (TMI).
In acoustics, two beats of nearly the same frequency interfere to produce a change in summed volume of a period equal to the difference between the two frequencies. At TMI, they found that if they played sine waves into each ear of a slightly different frequency, they could detect an increase in EEG power at the beat frequency. I was so taken with an article in OMNI on TMI that I saved it for over a decade until I started studying EEG research under Karl Pribram.
Once I started studying it, a glaring error came to mind. We had to put subjects in a Gaussian cage to shield them from stray signals from the heaters and pumps for the swimming pool elsewhere in the building our lab was at. These caused induced currents in the EEG. If that was necessary, how could they justify putting electromagenticially driven headphones on top an EEG cap?
To first pull things apart, I tested a single subject -- a styrofoam head (a wig stand) with EEG cap and headphones on it. I was able to show power increases at precisely the same frequencies as the beat signal. (I'd first suggested using a bowl of Jell-O. Karl suggested not to, since he'd found increases in alpha waves in a bowl of Jell-O when shaken. No, I don't know why. Neither did Karl. We just thought it was extremely cool.)
To make it more official, I helped teach some students at University of Virginia at Wise to run EEG research. Their EEG system could produce sound remotely in a closed box and transmit it via air conduction up long plastic tubes into the ears -- no electromagnets anywhere near the head. They ran it this was as well as the traditional Monroe way (headphones on top of EEG cap). In the each of the same subjects, the traditional method produced power increases at the beat frequency. With air conduction stimuli, no changes were observed.
My two greatest joys in science are having undergrads produce results presented at international conferences, and in bursting the bubbles of old farts in the field. This particular project resulted in both. Not only did TMI present several pieces of research as valid, but many other people used the same set up and got stuff published elsewhere. Go to PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez and put in "binaural beat" to get the relevant results (and some not relevant, but they're easy to tell apart).
Now, you'd think that once results are presented that show it's bogus, people would quit. Not so. We did the work on 2002. Check the dates on the PubMed results. Now, that's kind of fraudulent, but more a sign that there's way too many people publishing way too many things in way too many places to be able to keep track of everything. OTOH, our work isn't in PubMed because it was a conference presentation.
What is fraudulent is the many places that produce all sorts of new agey junk based on binaural beat, claiming there's scientific evidence, but not ever quoting any, whether the original well done but slightly fatally flawed TMI work, or any subsequent. Also fairly fraudulent by TMI and all the others is claims that specific frequency differences can be used to produce specific changes such as, oh hell, here's just a sampling from TMI: http://monroeinstitute.com/store/home.php
I try to go easy on the scientific community when it comes to possible fraud claims in this area. To their credit, there used to be many more people producing work in this field, including some at U. Va. itself. In fact some from U/
There'll be enough signal as well as noise regarding felony conviction vs. senate election and so forth. I've got a different angle:
If Stevens is guilty, then the oil company/lobby/unnamed source is too. Said 'too' is undoubtedly backed by big money (of at least buy-a-Senator amounts). As a sentence, whether from the senate building or a jail cell, Stevens should be made to administer an agency that uses money from 'too' to renovate everybody else's houses. To add a touch of irony, the covered renovations should only be those which reduce oil consumption.
Sure it's silly. So's the assumption that Stevens will suffer any ill effects of any sentence. He's too rich for that to happen.
Indiana resident here: since 2005 all of Indiana observes DST, including Lafayette.
Thanks for the update. Been away a while. Our numbers were from 10 years prior to the switch to DST. I'd be interested to know whether the admission number changes now match other areas. Unfortunately neither of us are still in that business.
You can say "should be prepared to spend the rest of their lives there", and get hero types willing to die for the cause. Noble, but fatalistic.
You can say "and don't have to come back", and get cranky, hard to work with, independent pioneers who are willing to live for the cause. A pain in the ass, but realistic.
Develop self-replicating environmental mechanisms that will make it possible for people to stay and there will be more volunteers than can possibly be carried there by all the proposed lifters.
"Please tell me Mr. Sagan, are we ever going to get out of this planet alive?" -- Planet Earth Rock & Roll Orchestra
An area of Indiana around Lafayette (and Purdue University) doesn't observe DST. They stay the same all year while the areas around them switch back and forth. They suffer no ill effects from not changing their clocks twice a year. The further suffer no ill effects due to different amounts of light and darkness compared to their stable time system. Like the rest of the planet, those that need to resort to a world-wide time standard use Greenwich/Zulu. Once again, no ill effects of keeping the same time difference between their time standard and Greenwich/Zulu have been observed.
I mention no ill effects because my ex-wife, who ran a substance abuse treatment center in Lafayette, and I, running one in Virginia, compared daily intake numbers for three years. Every fall, the weekend after time changed in Virginia, we had a 250% increase in admissions. She saw no such change. As to whether a sudden smack to the diurnal rhythm forcing one into crisis and so into treatment is an ill effect or a beneficial effect remains open for discussion. The vast majority of the people in the Lafayette area will continue to not care.
They did not erase anything. They PREVENTED.
What they prevented was an association of the memory for the event and the "trauma", which is pain. They tested for reactions associated with the pain. Some say there is no memory for pain, only for painful events. I disagree in that some people retain some memory of pain, and a few retain it well, while most retain memory of the event and have an association to an implicit (non-conscious) memory of pain. They managed to prevent more so what often doesn't happen anyway.
The only thing they *could* have tested was association to the pain. To test for the memory of the event they'd have had to ask the mice what they recalled. I'm pretty sure they didn't. Doing so would imply they expected the mice to answer.
Can someone please explain how I can upgrady to FF3.1 from 2.07 without looking my history, book marks and passwords?
I tried IE 6 to FF2 at one time, and it worked fine. Luckily all my links to external stuff was in my head or relatively meaningles. When I tried FF3 in top of FF2, all my saved links, history, settings and such went away. I look through the FAQs and HOW TOs and the various forums, and figured oyt that FF suffers from the same problem lots of other tech companies do -- the programmers who happen to know the most about the overall project get tasked with writing the manual. Knowing a lot and being able to explain it well to not correlate, exscept something negatively. FF needs a clearer, easier to navigate and find things in a, instructional flowchart. If there is one, they've managed to hide it well, another symptom of having programmers in charge of documentation. They're mind sets are prefaced with "well you should already know" and "all you have to do is" X, Y or Y', if X then Z, W, download ACB from D*; if Y' then close all programs, download DEFG installer, run it, it will put I on your hard drive which you can use to install ABC which will ask a lot of questions, start to do something, find an error and loop around to ABC and have it ask the same questions so it can loop again.
If I'm mistaken and FF3 can do this, that is upgrade the core without screwing up the external files or losing them completely, please let me know. I can read legal do uments easier than I can read FF's documentation, because the latter doesn't assume you already know everything, which if you did would make documentation unnecessary. The writers are stiill working, so they're still needed. If they would please write for their audience rather than themslves, they might serve to spread FF a lot more.