The simplest explanation is most likely to be true. Here's a hypothetical that's simpler than any quantum effect.
The gamma rays are due to infalling material. Flares are due to sudden large amounts of material falling in. As it falls in it gets hotter. The frequency of the emissions increases as the material heats, going from lower gamma rays to higher gamma rays. These are all accepted as fact. The hypothetical: The 4 minute delay is the time it took for the material to fall in far enough to raise the emission frequency by the observed amount.
Much simpler and neater. Even if I had the observed data and the data on the mass of the galaxy observed, I'm not capable of the relevant calculations, but the logic follows.
On the other hand, Willam of Ockam didn't have a razor -- he had a beard. Einstein trumped Newton with a more complex theory, so the parsimony beloved by scientists doesn't always hold. But in this case, I suspect it will.
> Apparently you missed the bit where they mentioned that it's a reflective display. It doesn't produce light, only reflect it. So yes, if you shine an infrared light on it, it can reflect it. But it doesn't "make" infrared, and thus won't melt itself.
I didn't miss that at all, though "make" was a poor choice.
It'll reflect different frequencies according to the nodule spacing. It can reflect IR as well as other frequencies, so it can NOT reflect IR, or reflect it at a particular angle according to incidence of incoming. They said it can work in sunlight which is fairly IR rich (or it wouldn't be warm). If it's tuned to reflect everything but IR, it's absorbing the IR. Same if it's tuned so that IR is reflected very close to the plane of the display. If efficient enough it'd heat up. The question is, how much?
Having replied, it occurred to me that heat would also change the spacing of the nodules by heating the crystals holding them, changing the absorbed and reflected frequencies. If increased spacing = increased reflection of lower frequencies, it'd reflect more IR as it heated. If the opposite, it could heat itself up in a run away cycle. I didn't follow which way it worked. In any case, any outdoor application (they mentioned billboards) would probably need to measure and react to temperature changes to display the colors the driver intends. Maybe not in smaller displays, but a billboard collects a lot of insolation (1 kW / m^2). OTOH, I suppose such a display could be set to reflect IR broadband and at various angles around on-axis, and thus keep itself from heating over much. That'd also heat the air in front of it, which might make for some nifty special effects.
> That's why these paper "books" will never catch on. No backlighting!
"Ah. Humor. Ahrrr! Ahrrr!" -- Mork
If you backlit this thing, the display image would be on the back side, doing you as much good as an LCD from the rear.
Another limitation: angle of incidence. The spacing between the little balls makes the colors. The apparent spacing changes as the angle changes. Color straight on would be a different color off center. What makes opals so pretty is that the color changes as it or you move.
Same goes for them being flexible. If you bend it, the color would change according to how much it was bent.
And how would they make black?
And if it can make infrared, it will according to some angles of incidence. Will it melt itself?
Subject applies to both the analysis and the conclusion.
Analysis at the time for one test showed negative, the other was inconclusive (not "yes"). At that point (as Sagan announced) they were cautiously hopeful, since the tests looked at different things, and some forms of life could appear negative to one and not the other. The negative test was replicated in Antarctica and showed negative there too, making that Mars analysis also inconclusive. No idea what Sagan had to say about it then.
It's unlikely life as we know it could be "based on" H2O2. It'd be far more likely to be based on water and highly tolerant of H2O2. The peroxide would come from ultraviolet from the sun hitting exposed water. I expect pretty much any exposed water (even ice, though the reaction would be slow) would have a fairly high percentage. But the water wouldn't be pure and so the peroxide would break down, keeping it at a low equilibrium. Life as we don't know it might use H2O2 for energy catalyzing it to break it down, pulling in more selectively from the environment or creating its own via an ultraviolet driven photosynthesis-like process.
To exist in H2O2 living things have to be able to break it down, such as we do using superoxide dismutase. If we didn't, the peroxide would eat (among other things) the walls off our cells because it destroys the lipids that the walls are made of. Germs don't have this mechanism, and that's why peroxide is a good antiseptic. However, with nothing like lipids or their precursors to work with, any Martian life is not likely to have lipid shells. That makes it unlikely the have any similarity to Earth life. Even the (theoretically) first living things on Earth, cyanobacteria, have lipid-based shells.
So, the news here is that someone's projecting a specific form Martian life might take based on the Viking data. The implication is that if correct, the Panspermia hypothesis probably doesn't hold. On the other hand, there can be a highly complex collection of compounds collecting ultraviolet, making and/or using H2O2, and developing more of itself via an endothremic self-organization process. Life as we don't know it might not be confined to a small, protected, self-contained module, but might be spread over large areas. It stretches the definition of life, but it's about time we do so, so we know it when we find it because "The thing about aliens is, they're alien".
1. The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.
Anyone can sue (that is, as it means in the article, file suit) for anything. In doing so frequently and for weakly supported reasons they risk being charged with the above. Unfortunately, hardly anyone files counter-charges of barratry against habitual suit filers when the present action is clearly intimidation through judicial (not "legal", as that implies it's allowed by law) means. Individuals found guilty of this face only a misdemeanor. Attorneys found guilty of it face being disbarred, and so filing such charges usually result in the attorney withdrawing themselves and/or the filing. That makes this charge a very effective tactic. Soliciting an opinion (here, sending a book for review) and not liking the opinion, and so filing suit most definitely makes this charge a possibility.
As to calling someone names (as opposed to making what's intended or can be taken to be factual statement about them) I've seen no better or more entertaining treatment of the subject than the first episode of Penn and Teller's BULLSHIT! I highly recommend it.
I expect to see that kind of amateur, fact evading, OMYGOD hair-on-fire hysteria from WIRED. I don't just not expect to see it on/., I expect to NOT see it on/.
STOP IT. Use some sense and have a little editorial integrity, will you? If this is the result of lack of submissions, consider whether perhaps having fewer stories is not less damaging to your reputation than having this sort of asinine crap. I hope the reason this article was used was that you knew it'd result in a lot of sparks and smoke in the discussion, because the alternative is too depressing to contemplate. If it is, it's still not good enough.
We really, really need the ability to mod parent articles.
The Army prefers not to put powered vehicles on the front line because (1) they require refueling, and fuel is a supply/logistics problem, and (2) they make noise, and (3) being mechanical, they break.
Loading up each soldier with enough H2O2 to get through the day would require stocking and maintaining equipment for this stuff. Running out of H2O2 before you can get refueled will result in removing the equipment so it won't detract from action, and that will result in soldiers abandoning it rather than run around burdened by something they can't use.
Sitting around making a hissing noise makes one a target even in the dark.
Putting a non-combatant like a mechanic/armorer on the front line is a bad idea because they can get killed, leaving you with useless armor. If this happens, or if it breaks and you don't send a mechanic/armorer because they're a burden themselves, it will result in the same abandoning noted above. Electrical devices break down less than mechanical and make them more likely to be adopted and used.
If H2O2/catalyst devices are capable of producing sufficient power, they'd be being developed for use in fuel cells (which still requires the rear line placement), which could recharge battery powered armor (which doesn't have near the other problems). To be efficient it would require high purity stuff, which is hard to produce, and requires difficult and expensive maintenance no matter how far back it's made and stored. Even so, it'd be better from a logistic and tactical stand point to develop hydrogen based fuel cells to charge battery powered armor, running off the hydrogen from the fuels they're already going to be carting around -- unleaded, diesel and JP4/8.
The ones on the end of her arms. Teach her (and you) American Sign Language. Prop up a page with the alphabet on it, and maybe a few one-handed, more useful signs (yes, no, etc.) and have at it. It's cheaper, it's easier to learn (compared to a non-techie trying to learn tech), and it's useful outside this particular need. Learning is good for older brains, and learning a language, with motor skills involved, sounds like excellent mental exercise to me.
And imagine the fun you can have with grandma later when she's over to dinner and mom serves something she doesn't like. She can tell you it "tastes like poop" and nobody else need be the wiser.
It was claimed that spam would do it, as well as the sudden growth of the alt.binaries.* usenet newsgroups. I'm guessing that the massive increase in bandwidth useage due to the "junk" newsgroups that became the alt.* hierarchy were also blamed for the impending demise.
Although they seem to be relatively neutral in most of their pubs, ABI appears to be throwing the industry a bone, with "an ASA investigation into adverts for its unlimited broadband service that as of 31 March 2007 only 1.09 percent of customers exceeded the fair usage policy limitation for its service," and saying it with a straight face.
Oh well, the more the merrier. Perhaps the new one will have videos from talks given. Not the nifty graphics oriented demonstration-type stuff, but that kind of stuff has been accumulating and not being used.
Since those companies that are growing more slowly are still growing the same direction as the "red shift" companies, there is no blue shift, just different shades of red. This is not a very good analogy.
A much better one would equate companies with countries, and growth with energy useage. There's one company that's the US, growing/using much more per capita (per dollar) than the others. There's a few that are growing/using somewhat less, but in the same order of magnitude. There are more and more as you go to the low end of the list, with many not growing much more than the GDP (equivalent to using only their own energy production).
Of course no CEO wants his company equated to something that squanders resources and dumps crap into the environment in the process. No sense of humor.
Incidents referenced that actually occurred: two; stolen memory.
Incidents referenced not stated as actually happening: one; malware.
Incidents of "mandates" referenced: zero. Plus, the UConn IT guy says they can't do that anyway, so putting that in the headline makes it worth a -1.
This article seems to be pieces of three different articles that never got finished, thrown together into one big pile of FUD. Any one of them would make a good article if there were enough on-topic material. I'll give the guy a break and assume he was under pressure to produce an article on a slow news day.
It comes to $50 for every single person in the U.S.
And that's just to start the program. The figures for continued operation aren't included. The Texas figures appear to reflect the fact that half of states will probably not participate.
If Texas has to charge $100 per, I sure hope mine doesn't accidentally fall into the microwave. That could really bollox up the wait line at DFW when I fly out.
Pass a law that makes it illegal for any legislator to receive profit from stock in any company contracted to supply goods or services for the program, and same for anyone associated in any way with them, and watch how fast it falls apart.
Actually, the Texas figure probably represent the legislation's attempt the scare Texans into demanding the state scrap the program, so the legislators can claim it was public pressure. And that's fine -- they work with us, we work with them. I'd say I'm surprised we haven't already voted the program down, but I've seen too many pro-Dubya stuff come out of here recently that's entirely contrary to traditional Texan independence.
Decades ago the US started training federal law enforcement in the same sort of stuff, taken from "neurolinguistic programming" (NLP). The idea was that when answering a question, your eyes go to one side or another according to whether you're telling the truth or not (or using a memorized answer vs. arithmetically calculating a sum, etc.) because the part of the brain nearest where the eyes point is involved.
This was obviously pseudo-science. There was never any evidence that the eyes know what part of the brain does what kind of work, or more precisely, that occular orientation supports or reacts to brain localization. There is, however, ample evidence that the brain holds to traditionally accepted left/right differentiation (called laterality) less than 3/4 of the time. One quarter of right handed females have undifferentiated laterality and 10% have reversed laterality. It's 10% and 5%, respectivley, for rigth handed males. Left handed of both genders are even more likely to violate the "standard". So even if it did work, they'd need to do a brain scan on each person identified using the technique to validate the observations made.
If the new technique (if it *is* a new technique, and *if* it "works") could be foiled by botox or local anesthetic injections to partially paralyze, or TENS unit (electrical pulse) stimulation to tire out, some facial muscles and/or capsacin injections to stimulate some. My preferred techniques for overcoming this observational stuff through conscious control also work for physiological testing (polygraph): biofeedback and yoga. That's hardly news either. Some federal officers were also taught these.
Note that commonly known NLP is not the same NLP taught to the cops. They came from the same people, but the former was created and released later, and differs significantly in many respects. IMO it was created as an "ineffective" smoke screen for the latter.
We've run out of other kinds if victims, so now the most capable have to be victims too.
Not run out per se, but they've had their 15 minutes of our attention span.
I have a set of videos on different topics in psychology that I use in the classroom. In one, a retarded child is put in a class of gifted children and expected to perform at their level. She does, though she has to work harder at it. If a retarded child can perform at genius level, I have no doubt geniuses can operate just fine among the normals without mere mortals having to put themselves out worrying about it. Any child will seek out adequate stimulation unless taught not to. A genius is more capable than most at finding things to keep themselves interested. Making them dependent on us providing what we think is enough and of the right sort teaches them to rely on us rather than themselves. That is counter-productive.
Read the biographies of the likes of Einstein and Feynman, and you'll find childhoods encouraged in self-directed exploration and thought. They are shown how to develop their own thinking tools and left on their own unless they actively seek out assistance.
A +5 funny despite a -1 Overrated, plus an "I like you" which I'm going to take as my first +6 Funny, AND an awesome picture of a SPACE DINO-CYCLE. This has been one nifty thread. Thank you all, especially Chris Martin for the unintentional but still effective inspiration. THIS is what science education should be like.
Costs go up, wail and moan, charge even more than the cost increase, PROFIT!
Costs go down, warn that reduced profits could mean reduced supply, charge more, PROFIT!
Yes, they're learning. From the oil companies. Once you get a good crisis going you can always find excuse to keep it going as long as you can profit from it. You just need to keep redefining the crisis.
What's the difference between fiction and non-fiction?
According to "A paper published by UCF researchers", nothing.
I offer in repeat here every bit of evidence presented in the paper to support their assertions:
" ".
Plenty of cool looking equations to show they know what they're mathing about, and plenty of criticism to show they can talk about what they're talking about, but 100% pure grade A certified data free. They don't even TRY to justify their claims, they just make them, bash movies, and conclude they're right.
Where the hell did they learn their science from, the movies?
I usually choke when journalists do a bad job presenting science. Sometimes the tables get turned, and they quote exactly what's said. Unfortunately. So, in the spirit of equal chain jerking:
From TFA as presented on MSNBC: "If Neanderthal man had ultraviolet eyes and could look above the atmosphere, he could have seen the beginning of this tail forming," study leader Chris Martin, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology, said during a teleconference Wednesday.
AWEsome, d00d.
And, if they had ultraviolet eyes on 30,000 light year long eye stalks, they could not only see above the atmosphere, they could see the tail as it formed, RIGHT WHERE IT WAS HAPPENING.
OH. OH. And if the DINOSAURS had ultraviolet eyes, and could see above the atmosphere, they could see it 65 million years BEFORE it happened. And they could probably also see that asteroid coming and build SPACESHIPS, no wait, SPACE DINOSAUR MOTORCYCLES, they could get off the planet before it got hit, and fly to that star and live there, and then 65 million years later all wag their tails at the same time and make the star shoot off gas and dust like a BIG TAIL that we could see, because they wanted to say hi and let us know they were all OK and we shouldn't be all sad because we thought they all got extincted.
I guess we can't all be Carl Sagan. Because then there would be BIL..... nevermind.
Sorry, Woz, but that's not how you built computers. Using the fewest parts might be "simple" in engeering and construction terms. But a complex design is required to use fewest parts more more functions. I spent hours marveling at the design of the ][ in the SAMS Photofacts and on the mamaboard itself. It was well compared to a work of art. Most marvelous was the management of those fewest pieces for more functions through complex design, and the lack of catastrophic failures due to the multiple interactions in the complex design. Simple? For you maybe. And for the builders who won't care about the deign complexity if it's easy to build. For everyone else, it'll be a magic balancing act of matter and energy.
Still, call it what you want. I'll buy one. I'll even pay extra if I can get a cave in the basement like at your old house. IIRC, I paid $600 for a Disk ][ to go with my $1350 Apple ][. They still work. I'm betting your cave still does. Just PLEASE, if some bonehead tries to team with you and convince you to sell it, then tells you not to build in all the neatisms into it you can, this time RUN AWAY.
It is: "The device contained a positively charged wire, or anode, and negatively charged electrodes, called cathodes. The anode was positioned about 10 millimeters above the cathodes. When voltage was passed through the device, the negatively charged electrodes discharged electrons toward the positively charged anode. Along the way, the electrons collided with air molecules, producing positively charged ions, which were then attracted back toward the negatively charged electrodes, creating an "ionic wind."
Even Mythbusters managed to get one to work, so Purdue should have no problem. Not until someone applies "prior art" from T.T. Brown's patents and shoots down their (incl. Intel's) aspirations of... profit!
... nobody is fast tracking a man-rated orbital launch and crew vehicle. Nor should they. They don't have a design that can be.
SpaceX has altered their plans, but it's to make improvements to the design. Kistler is tearing itself apart again with its usual money flow induced turbulence and bad management induced harmonic oscillations in its structure; Rocketplane is probably sorry by now they teamed with them. And Rutan is dealing with his recent problem while keeping things on his planned track, and I'd trust his judgement over all the others combined -- he'll pull it off when intended to with or without the recent and most any following problems. He is following the path of NASA in the 60s, with engineers making the decisions rather than having management involved in that. He'll make the metaphorical "moon by the end of the decade", but not before he intends to and his craft are built according to those intentions.
Bigelow may well have his habitat ready sooner. If so, it'll be due to the Spanish outfit's announcement last week of a 2012 deadline for a similar goal. That's a bad reason, but he's launching a habitat, not a powered vehicle. I believe he can do it. If anyone tries to fast track a launch system to keep up with that race, or to beat each other (most likely, to try to beat Rutan) they'll replay the historical "In Soviet Russia, rocket launch YOU -- in pieces."
> whitewashing and other self-interested editing of Wikipedia.
That would be all of it. Seriously. One person's truth is another's spin. Even the science.
And one person's correction is another's censorship. Feel free to embark on that particular sinking ship.
The signal of consensus opinion is only strengthened by the noise of bias. Apply 'stochastic amplification' to behavior. It's less biased than the more common 'cognitive dissonance' but the result is the same. Those to whom a particular point is egregious enough will act on it.
I could have sworn the point was made when the subject came up a week or two ago. It's no less applicable just because someone made a widget that tells you the poo stinks. You won't step in it, and be happy; the flies will land on it, and be happy; someone else will stomp on the flies, and be happy. Let's all go get happy. That's what epoostimology is about.
Try a different direction if you prefer: "Deep and dark, yet within it is an essence. That essence is real and can be discovered. Therein lies truth." -- Ch. 21, Tao the Ching, Lao Tzu. That "essence" is in the deep content, and in the dark metacontent regarding the creation and changes of all the content. I'll take my essence from my reading of these, not from someone's widget, because it too has an agenda in its essence.
"(10 to the power of 24) to one against"...... and FALL-ing...
You may think that number is really big, but that's just peanuts compared to an Infinite Improbability Drive.
Come on, are you Brits losing your nerve? Let's get back to some real heavy numbers.
(Just to switch from Adams to Vinge for a second, isn't Wickramasinghe one of those group-mind dog thingies from "A Fire Upon The Deep"? OK, back to Adams.)
Yeah, some real heavy numbers, like some Plutonium Rock. How did it go? BWAH *BWAAH* BWAH.
I am also bloody disappointed none of you came back from the future to specify Dr. Brian May to play the Disaster Area sequence. He took the time (snortsnort) to come back 50 years to appear on "The Sky At Night's" 50th anniversary, so it's the least you could had will diding. It would'll be done only another 30 years backforeing for him to going had do the first BBC radio version.
Slashdot Mirror
The simplest explanation is most likely to be true. Here's a hypothetical that's simpler than any quantum effect.
The gamma rays are due to infalling material. Flares are due to sudden large amounts of material falling in. As it falls in it gets hotter. The frequency of the emissions increases as the material heats, going from lower gamma rays to higher gamma rays. These are all accepted as fact. The hypothetical: The 4 minute delay is the time it took for the material to fall in far enough to raise the emission frequency by the observed amount.
Much simpler and neater. Even if I had the observed data and the data on the mass of the galaxy observed, I'm not capable of the relevant calculations, but the logic follows.
On the other hand, Willam of Ockam didn't have a razor -- he had a beard. Einstein trumped Newton with a more complex theory, so the parsimony beloved by scientists doesn't always hold. But in this case, I suspect it will.
> Apparently you missed the bit where they mentioned that it's a reflective display. It doesn't produce light, only reflect it. So yes, if you shine an infrared light on it, it can reflect it. But it doesn't "make" infrared, and thus won't melt itself.
I didn't miss that at all, though "make" was a poor choice.
It'll reflect different frequencies according to the nodule spacing. It can reflect IR as well as other frequencies, so it can NOT reflect IR, or reflect it at a particular angle according to incidence of incoming. They said it can work in sunlight which is fairly IR rich (or it wouldn't be warm). If it's tuned to reflect everything but IR, it's absorbing the IR. Same if it's tuned so that IR is reflected very close to the plane of the display. If efficient enough it'd heat up. The question is, how much?
Having replied, it occurred to me that heat would also change the spacing of the nodules by heating the crystals holding them, changing the absorbed and reflected frequencies. If increased spacing = increased reflection of lower frequencies, it'd reflect more IR as it heated. If the opposite, it could heat itself up in a run away cycle. I didn't follow which way it worked. In any case, any outdoor application (they mentioned billboards) would probably need to measure and react to temperature changes to display the colors the driver intends. Maybe not in smaller displays, but a billboard collects a lot of insolation (1 kW / m^2). OTOH, I suppose such a display could be set to reflect IR broadband and at various angles around on-axis, and thus keep itself from heating over much. That'd also heat the air in front of it, which might make for some nifty special effects.
> That's why these paper "books" will never catch on. No backlighting!
"Ah. Humor. Ahrrr! Ahrrr!" -- Mork
If you backlit this thing, the display image would be on the back side, doing you as much good as an LCD from the rear.
Another limitation: angle of incidence. The spacing between the little balls makes the colors. The apparent spacing changes as the angle changes. Color straight on would be a different color off center. What makes opals so pretty is that the color changes as it or you move.
Same goes for them being flexible. If you bend it, the color would change according to how much it was bent.
And how would they make black?
And if it can make infrared, it will according to some angles of incidence. Will it melt itself?
> meetings/classes with a projector in use
> at the pub or theatre
> in bed
> outside at night
> in a car/plane/train at night
> etc.
How often in each of those places do you presently use a backlit or emitting display?
Subject applies to both the analysis and the conclusion.
Analysis at the time for one test showed negative, the other was inconclusive (not "yes").
At that point (as Sagan announced) they were cautiously hopeful, since the tests looked at different things, and some forms of life could appear negative to one and not the other. The negative test was replicated in Antarctica and showed negative there too, making that Mars analysis also inconclusive. No idea what Sagan had to say about it then.
It's unlikely life as we know it could be "based on" H2O2. It'd be far more likely to be based on water and highly tolerant of H2O2. The peroxide would come from ultraviolet from the sun hitting exposed water. I expect pretty much any exposed water (even ice, though the reaction would be slow) would have a fairly high percentage. But the water wouldn't be pure and so the peroxide would break down, keeping it at a low equilibrium. Life as we don't know it might use H2O2 for energy catalyzing it to break it down, pulling in more selectively from the environment or creating its own via an ultraviolet driven photosynthesis-like process.
To exist in H2O2 living things have to be able to break it down, such as we do using superoxide dismutase. If we didn't, the peroxide would eat (among other things) the walls off our cells because it destroys the lipids that the walls are made of. Germs don't have this mechanism, and that's why peroxide is a good antiseptic. However, with nothing like lipids or their precursors to work with, any Martian life is not likely to have lipid shells. That makes it unlikely the have any similarity to Earth life. Even the (theoretically) first living things on Earth, cyanobacteria, have lipid-based shells.
So, the news here is that someone's projecting a specific form Martian life might take based on the Viking data. The implication is that if correct, the Panspermia hypothesis probably doesn't hold. On the other hand, there can be a highly complex collection of compounds collecting ultraviolet, making and/or using H2O2, and developing more of itself via an endothremic self-organization process. Life as we don't know it might not be confined to a small, protected, self-contained module, but might be spread over large areas. It stretches the definition of life, but it's about time we do so, so we know it when we find it because "The thing about aliens is, they're alien".
n., pl. -tries.
1. The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.
Anyone can sue (that is, as it means in the article, file suit) for anything. In doing so frequently and for weakly supported reasons they risk being charged with the above. Unfortunately, hardly anyone files counter-charges of barratry against habitual suit filers when the present action is clearly intimidation through judicial (not "legal", as that implies it's allowed by law) means. Individuals found guilty of this face only a misdemeanor. Attorneys found guilty of it face being disbarred, and so filing such charges usually result in the attorney withdrawing themselves and/or the filing. That makes this charge a very effective tactic. Soliciting an opinion (here, sending a book for review) and not liking the opinion, and so filing suit most definitely makes this charge a possibility.
As to calling someone names (as opposed to making what's intended or can be taken to be factual statement about them) I've seen no better or more entertaining treatment of the subject than the first episode of Penn and Teller's BULLSHIT! I highly recommend it.
"DMCA Means You Can't Delete Files On Your PC?"
/., I expect to NOT see it on /.
I expect to see that kind of amateur, fact evading, OMYGOD hair-on-fire hysteria from WIRED. I don't just not expect to see it on
STOP IT. Use some sense and have a little editorial integrity, will you? If this is the result of lack of submissions, consider whether perhaps having fewer stories is not less damaging to your reputation than having this sort of asinine crap. I hope the reason this article was used was that you knew it'd result in a lot of sparks and smoke in the discussion, because the alternative is too depressing to contemplate. If it is, it's still not good enough.
We really, really need the ability to mod parent articles.
The Army prefers not to put powered vehicles on the front line because
(1) they require refueling, and fuel is a supply/logistics problem, and
(2) they make noise, and
(3) being mechanical, they break.
Loading up each soldier with enough H2O2 to get through the day would require stocking and maintaining equipment for this stuff. Running out of H2O2 before you can get refueled will result in removing the equipment so it won't detract from action, and that will result in soldiers abandoning it rather than run around burdened by something they can't use.
Sitting around making a hissing noise makes one a target even in the dark.
Putting a non-combatant like a mechanic/armorer on the front line is a bad idea because they can get killed, leaving you with useless armor. If this happens, or if it breaks and you don't send a mechanic/armorer because they're a burden themselves, it will result in the same abandoning noted above. Electrical devices break down less than mechanical and make them more likely to be adopted and used.
If H2O2/catalyst devices are capable of producing sufficient power, they'd be being developed for use in fuel cells (which still requires the rear line placement), which could recharge battery powered armor (which doesn't have near the other problems). To be efficient it would require high purity stuff, which is hard to produce, and requires difficult and expensive maintenance no matter how far back it's made and stored. Even so, it'd be better from a logistic and tactical stand point to develop hydrogen based fuel cells to charge battery powered armor, running off the hydrogen from the fuels they're already going to be carting around -- unleaded, diesel and JP4/8.
"What other kind of devices are available?"
The ones on the end of her arms. Teach her (and you) American Sign Language. Prop up a page with the alphabet on it, and maybe a few one-handed, more useful signs (yes, no, etc.) and have at it. It's cheaper, it's easier to learn (compared to a non-techie trying to learn tech), and it's useful outside this particular need. Learning is good for older brains, and learning a language, with motor skills involved, sounds like excellent mental exercise to me.
And imagine the fun you can have with grandma later when she's over to dinner and mom serves something she doesn't like. She can tell you it "tastes like poop" and nobody else need be the wiser.
It was claimed that spam would do it, as well as the sudden growth of the alt.binaries.* usenet newsgroups. I'm guessing that the massive increase in bandwidth useage due to the "junk" newsgroups that became the alt.* hierarchy were also blamed for the impending demise.
Although they seem to be relatively neutral in most of their pubs, ABI appears to be throwing the industry a bone, with "an ASA investigation into adverts for its unlimited broadband service that as of 31 March 2007 only 1.09 percent of customers exceeded the fair usage policy limitation for its service," and saying it with a straight face.
It's most definitely a good idea.
I wonder of they got the good idea from http://sciencehack.com/
Oh well, the more the merrier. Perhaps the new one will have videos from talks given. Not the nifty graphics oriented demonstration-type stuff, but that kind of stuff has been accumulating and not being used.
Since those companies that are growing more slowly are still growing the same direction as the "red shift" companies, there is no blue shift, just different shades of red. This is not a very good analogy.
A much better one would equate companies with countries, and growth with energy useage. There's one company that's the US, growing/using much more per capita (per dollar) than the others. There's a few that are growing/using somewhat less, but in the same order of magnitude. There are more and more as you go to the low end of the list, with many not growing much more than the GDP (equivalent to using only their own energy production).
Of course no CEO wants his company equated to something that squanders resources and dumps crap into the environment in the process. No sense of humor.
Incidents referenced that actually occurred: two; stolen memory.
Incidents referenced not stated as actually happening: one; malware.
Incidents of "mandates" referenced: zero. Plus, the UConn IT guy says they can't do that anyway, so putting that in the headline makes it worth a -1.
This article seems to be pieces of three different articles that never got finished, thrown together into one big pile of FUD. Any one of them would make a good article if there were enough on-topic material. I'll give the guy a break and assume he was under pressure to produce an article on a slow news day.
It comes to $50 for every single person in the U.S.
And that's just to start the program. The figures for continued operation aren't included. The Texas figures appear to reflect the fact that half of states will probably not participate.
If Texas has to charge $100 per, I sure hope mine doesn't accidentally fall into the microwave. That could really bollox up the wait line at DFW when I fly out.
Pass a law that makes it illegal for any legislator to receive profit from stock in any company contracted to supply goods or services for the program, and same for anyone associated in any way with them, and watch how fast it falls apart.
Actually, the Texas figure probably represent the legislation's attempt the scare Texans into demanding the state scrap the program, so the legislators can claim it was public pressure. And that's fine -- they work with us, we work with them. I'd say I'm surprised we haven't already voted the program down, but I've seen too many pro-Dubya stuff come out of here recently that's entirely contrary to traditional Texan independence.
Decades ago the US started training federal law enforcement in the same sort of stuff, taken from "neurolinguistic programming" (NLP). The idea was that when answering a question, your eyes go to one side or another according to whether you're telling the truth or not (or using a memorized answer vs. arithmetically calculating a sum, etc.) because the part of the brain nearest where the eyes point is involved.
This was obviously pseudo-science. There was never any evidence that the eyes know what part of the brain does what kind of work, or more precisely, that occular orientation supports or reacts to brain localization. There is, however, ample evidence that the brain holds to traditionally accepted left/right differentiation (called laterality) less than 3/4 of the time. One quarter of right handed females have undifferentiated laterality and 10% have reversed laterality. It's 10% and 5%, respectivley, for rigth handed males. Left handed of both genders are even more likely to violate the "standard". So even if it did work, they'd need to do a brain scan on each person identified using the technique to validate the observations made.
If the new technique (if it *is* a new technique, and *if* it "works") could be foiled by botox or local anesthetic injections to partially paralyze, or TENS unit (electrical pulse) stimulation to tire out, some facial muscles and/or capsacin injections to stimulate some. My preferred techniques for overcoming this observational stuff through conscious control also work for physiological testing (polygraph): biofeedback and yoga. That's hardly news either. Some federal officers were also taught these.
Note that commonly known NLP is not the same NLP taught to the cops. They came from the same people, but the former was created and released later, and differs significantly in many respects. IMO it was created as an "ineffective" smoke screen for the latter.
We've run out of other kinds if victims, so now the most capable have to be victims too.
Not run out per se, but they've had their 15 minutes of our attention span.
I have a set of videos on different topics in psychology that I use in the classroom. In one, a retarded child is put in a class of gifted children and expected to perform at their level. She does, though she has to work harder at it. If a retarded child can perform at genius level, I have no doubt geniuses can operate just fine among the normals without mere mortals having to put themselves out worrying about it. Any child will seek out adequate stimulation unless taught not to. A genius is more capable than most at finding things to keep themselves interested. Making them dependent on us providing what we think is enough and of the right sort teaches them to rely on us rather than themselves. That is counter-productive.
Read the biographies of the likes of Einstein and Feynman, and you'll find childhoods encouraged in self-directed exploration and thought. They are shown how to develop their own thinking tools and left on their own unless they actively seek out assistance.
A +5 funny despite a -1 Overrated, plus an "I like you" which I'm going to take as my first +6 Funny, AND an awesome picture of a SPACE DINO-CYCLE. This has been one nifty thread. Thank you all, especially Chris Martin for the unintentional but still effective inspiration. THIS is what science education should be like.
Costs go up, wail and moan, charge even more than the cost increase, PROFIT!
Costs go down, warn that reduced profits could mean reduced supply, charge more, PROFIT!
Yes, they're learning. From the oil companies. Once you get a good crisis going you can always find excuse to keep it going as long as you can profit from it. You just need to keep redefining the crisis.
What's the difference between fiction and non-fiction?
According to "A paper published by UCF researchers", nothing.
I offer in repeat here every bit of evidence presented in the paper to support their assertions:
" ".
Plenty of cool looking equations to show they know what they're mathing about, and plenty of criticism to show they can talk about what they're talking about, but 100% pure grade A certified data free. They don't even TRY to justify their claims, they just make them, bash movies, and conclude they're right.
Where the hell did they learn their science from, the movies?
I usually choke when journalists do a bad job presenting science. Sometimes the tables get turned, and they quote exactly what's said. Unfortunately. So, in the spirit of equal chain jerking:
From TFA as presented on MSNBC: "If Neanderthal man had ultraviolet eyes and could look above the atmosphere, he could have seen the beginning of this tail forming," study leader Chris Martin, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology, said during a teleconference Wednesday.
AWEsome, d00d.
And, if they had ultraviolet eyes on 30,000 light year long eye stalks, they could not only see
above the atmosphere, they could see the tail as it formed, RIGHT WHERE IT WAS HAPPENING.
OH. OH. And if the DINOSAURS had ultraviolet eyes, and could see above the atmosphere, they could see it 65 million years BEFORE it happened. And they could probably also see that asteroid coming and build SPACESHIPS, no wait, SPACE DINOSAUR MOTORCYCLES, they could get off the planet before it got hit, and fly to that star and live there, and then 65 million years later all wag their tails at the same time and make the star shoot off gas and dust like a BIG TAIL that we could see, because they wanted to say hi and let us know they were all OK and we shouldn't be all sad because we thought they all got extincted.
I guess we can't all be Carl Sagan. Because then there would be BIL..... nevermind.
Sorry, Woz, but that's not how you built computers. Using the fewest parts might be "simple" in engeering and construction terms. But a complex design is required to use fewest parts more more functions. I spent hours marveling at the design of the ][ in the SAMS Photofacts and on the mamaboard itself. It was well compared to a work of art. Most marvelous was the management of those fewest pieces for more functions through complex design, and the lack of catastrophic failures due to the multiple interactions in the complex design. Simple? For you maybe. And for the builders who won't care about the deign complexity if it's easy to build. For everyone else, it'll be a magic balancing act of matter and energy.
Still, call it what you want. I'll buy one. I'll even pay extra if I can get a cave in the basement like at your old house. IIRC, I paid $600 for a Disk ][ to go with my $1350 Apple ][. They still work. I'm betting your cave still does. Just PLEASE, if some bonehead tries to team with you and convince you to sell it, then tells you not to build in all the neatisms into it you can, this time RUN AWAY.
It is: "The device contained a positively charged wire, or anode, and negatively charged electrodes, called cathodes. The anode was positioned about 10 millimeters above the cathodes. When voltage was passed through the device, the negatively charged electrodes discharged electrons toward the positively charged anode. Along the way, the electrons collided with air molecules, producing positively charged ions, which were then attracted back toward the negatively charged electrodes, creating an "ionic wind."
... profit!
Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft
Even Mythbusters managed to get one to work, so Purdue should have no problem. Not until someone applies "prior art" from T.T. Brown's patents and shoots down their (incl. Intel's) aspirations of
... nobody is fast tracking a man-rated orbital launch and crew vehicle. Nor should they. They don't have a design that can be.
SpaceX has altered their plans, but it's to make improvements to the design. Kistler is tearing itself apart again with its usual money flow induced turbulence and bad management induced harmonic oscillations in its structure; Rocketplane is probably sorry by now they teamed with them. And Rutan is dealing with his recent problem while keeping things on his planned track, and I'd trust his judgement over all the others combined -- he'll pull it off when intended to with or without the recent and most any following problems. He is following the path of NASA in the 60s, with engineers making the decisions rather than having management involved in that. He'll make the metaphorical "moon by the end of the decade", but not before he intends to and his craft are built according to those intentions.
Bigelow may well have his habitat ready sooner. If so, it'll be due to the Spanish outfit's announcement last week of a 2012 deadline for a similar goal. That's a bad reason, but he's launching a habitat, not a powered vehicle. I believe he can do it. If anyone tries to fast track a launch system to keep up with that race, or to beat each other (most likely, to try to beat Rutan) they'll replay the historical "In Soviet Russia, rocket launch YOU -- in pieces."
> whitewashing and other self-interested editing of Wikipedia.
That would be all of it. Seriously. One person's truth is another's spin. Even the science.
And one person's correction is another's censorship. Feel free to embark on that particular sinking ship.
The signal of consensus opinion is only strengthened by the noise of bias. Apply 'stochastic amplification' to behavior. It's less biased than the more common 'cognitive dissonance' but the result is the same. Those to whom a particular point is egregious enough will act on it.
I could have sworn the point was made when the subject came up a week or two ago. It's no less applicable just because someone made a widget that tells you the poo stinks. You won't step in it, and be happy; the flies will land on it, and be happy; someone else will stomp on the flies, and be happy. Let's all go get happy. That's what epoostimology is about.
Try a different direction if you prefer: "Deep and dark, yet within it is an essence. That essence is real and can be discovered. Therein lies truth." -- Ch. 21, Tao the Ching, Lao Tzu. That "essence" is in the deep content, and in the dark metacontent regarding the creation and changes of all the content. I'll take my essence from my reading of these, not from someone's widget, because it too has an agenda in its essence.
"(10 to the power of 24) to one against"... ... and FALL-ing ...
You may think that number is really big, but that's just peanuts compared to an Infinite Improbability Drive.
Come on, are you Brits losing your nerve? Let's get back to some real heavy numbers.
(Just to switch from Adams to Vinge for a second, isn't Wickramasinghe one of those group-mind dog thingies from "A Fire Upon The Deep"? OK, back to Adams.)
Yeah, some real heavy numbers, like some Plutonium Rock. How did it go? BWAH *BWAAH* BWAH.
I am also bloody disappointed none of you came back from the future to specify Dr. Brian May to play the Disaster Area sequence. He took the time (snortsnort) to come back 50 years to appear on "The Sky At Night's" 50th anniversary, so it's the least you could had will diding. It would'll be done only another 30 years backforeing for him to going had do the first BBC radio version.