CAE's latest project, included a mobile DNA extraction laboratory for testing food products for possible transgenic contamination. It was this equipment which triggered the Kafkaesque chain of events. FBI field and laboratory tests have shown that Kurtz's equipment was not used for any illegal purpose. In fact, it is not even _possible_ to use this equipment for the production or weaponization of dangerous germs. Furthermore, any person in the US may legally obtain and possess such equipment.
If that's true (and the quote does come from the CAE defense fund page - obviously a biased source), it doesn't seem to me like anyone could have much of a case against him.
I think this is just a symptom of a more general problem - most people don't understand the biology of transgenic food, and ignorance breeds fear and suspicion. There's also the conflation of ideas between transgenic plants and bioterror organisms. Yes, some of the same lab techniques of gene manipulation might be used in both, but "transgenic" seems to get confused with "harmful".
I would be awfully surprised if this guy was growing something in his home that caused the death of his wife. And if he did, chances are it came in on whatever material he was studying - in which case that's who should be investigated.
On the one hand, I think Mr. Kurtz probably should have set up a lab in his university rather than doing it in his home. But to lose your wife (most likely to some freak of chance - an undetected heart problem, or whatever) and your livelihood as well, is a steep price to pay.
I didn't mean to imply that people should junk all the deceased's files just after the funeral. Holding on to something for the sentimental value is different than what I meant by preserving data indiscriminately (presumeably for its "intrinsic" or "historical" value). And please don't assume that I speak without experience...
Good point. By saying information used to be more "ephemeral", I meant to refer to the total quantity of information that a person might encounter during their life. In the past, a much smaller fraction of that data would have been recorded and preserved, because the costs were greater.
What I should have said was that data is much easier and cheaper to create in the modern era. Paper publishing takes more time and resources, and so there tends to be some minimum threshold for what's important enough to store that way, and whatever doesn't make the cut is essentially "lost". Electronic data storage has recently gotten affordable enough to offer essentially unlimited capacity.
So it's much easier for someone living now to accumulate and store gigabytes of personal miscellany than it was 100 or even 10 years ago. The costs of the medium itself no longer requires us to distinguish between "important" data and all the other stuff, and we are still stuck in the mindset that all data is valuable and should be preserved. This is why I think that even though we are (temporarily) released from the economic pressure to let data be "forgotten", we need to free ourselves from the compulsion to save anything and everything.
While terminally ill, Mr. Cochran, a programmer, left a full list of passwords for his work files with his employer, Mr. Purnell said. But he failed to do the same thing with the personal files, so they are now inaccessible.
Maybe he didn't want anyone reading his personal files? That seems like the most obvious explanation to me.
I think that as a culture, we need to learn how to let go of things. In the past, information was more ephemeral; books would decay or be lost over time. Just because we have the capacity virtually eternal data storage doesn't mean we should.
In a way, I think holding on to every minute detail of someone's life devalues the things of importance they left behind. Do you think they really want to be remembered by their tax returns? Would they have wanted their grandchildren to inherit their file of meeting notes? If someone wants to leave important digital information to posterity, they should put that intent in their will, and (*gasp*) maybe even make a hard copy of it.
Obviously if someone dies suddenly, that may not be an option. But my point is that we, the survivors, need to relearn how to distinguish between valuable data and stuff better left forgotten.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the obvious solution to me is just to create a guest accout without admin priviledges. Let the renters know when they move in that if they want to install any special programs (if they want to use the computer to play some game, for example) that they have to let you know at the beginning of the summer so you can install it. As long as it's clear in advance what they can and can't use the computer for I don't see a problem. Also, if you aren't going to be around to administer the computer make sure they know that - preferably in writing, since if they come with the expectation of being able to use the computer for work, and something goes wrong, they will be looking for someone to blame.
Low calorie diets seem to work by slowing down your metabolism. So you're living longer by aging slower, but everything else slows down too - including mental and sexual function. (Never mind that few people can keep up a low calorie diet for very long without giving in to hunger and rebound weight gain, with all associated health problems.)
An interesting study on the effects of severe calorie restriction was done in the 40s. The volunteers in the study showed side effects such as moodiness, food obsession, decreased libido, general apathy, etc. This was on a 1500 calorie diet for just 6 months, and when the study was over many of the volunteers (all male) experienced binge eating and weight gain. Sorry I couldn't find any good online info, but the reference is: Ancel Keyes, et al, "The Biology of Human Starvation" (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1950)
Given the choice between a long life of deprivation and a somewhat shorter life of all-things-in-moderation, I'll take the latter...
The MIT Stata Center page has a link to their time-lapse webcam which captured the whole thing being built... I watched it for a while but it really wasn't all that exciting. Maybe with some editing (like taking out the night-time parts) it would have been more interesting to watch, but then I guess it would lose some of the authenticity...
Any portion of sky which doesn't have a star/galaxy in it is black, black black!
Not totally black... there is a fair bit of light that reflects off dust in the solar system (zodiacal light). So it's entirely possible for this galaxy to appear 101% as bright as the background sky.
And just for general info... there are lots of low-surface brightness galaxies out there - Malin1 for example.
My experience has been that most women want to control everything. They can waste time/money doing 'their thing', and you can't say anything about it. But when the tables are turned, you can't do the same.
My experience has been that most ACs like to post unrealistic stereotypes under the guise of insightful commentary.
I find it hard to believe that one sex is more selfish than the other by any objective measure. If that has been your experience, remember the despair.com poster: the only consistent feature of all your dissatisfying relationships is you.
I couldn't have said it better myself... and I'm female.
Knowing someone is willing to turn his/her attention to you without looking bored or distracted is a sign of respect. That's what's important, in my opinion.
My other question is what sort of energies are we talking about here since protons are fairly massive? I would guess in the 100+ GeV range (ie. particle accelerator size). Any thoughts or better links?
Actually when it comes to cosmic rays, the spectrum extends to the EeV range and even beyond. Here's an energy spectrum. In fact I'm doing my PhD on the study of cosmic rays at energies 10-1000 EeV, much higher energies than can be achieved in current particle accelerators.
I think they often put up artist's conceptions in order to illustrate non-visual data (spectral lines, etc). What bugs me in this case, though, is that it is labelled a "photo"... Now I know, and you know, that if anything this is a photo of a painting. But not everybody who reads the daily news would immediately realize that.
Last year I taught a course on the role of art in astronomy. "Artists interpretations" have a significant impact in shaping the public's impressions of astronomy, for better or for worse. The good side of it is of course that a picture can convey information that would be too abstract or technical to put in a news story the average person wants to read. The bad side of it is that such pictures often sensationalize astronomy in a way that distorts people's ideas or what science is actually capable of.
In this story for example, I think it would have been really great if they had included, along with the artist's conception, a visual of the actual data. That way people would be able to see for themselves what is observation and what is extrapolation.
Prettying up astronomical images is great for drawing people into the subject, but at somepoint it starts to become misleading. A LOT of people don't realize that all those beautiful Hubble pictures are shown in artificial color! Of course there's good reason for that - we couldn't see all of the wavelengths with our eyes anyway - but if the ultimate goal (and I believe it is) is to educate people about astronomy, we need to make more of an effort to give them the full picture (so to speak...) I think "the average joe" would be able to appreciate it much more than most scientists would seem to give him credit for.
The concept of escape velocity doesn't really apply here - that formula assumes gravity is the only force acting on the object. The point of a blimp is that you can take advantage of the buoyancy of helium in air, which provides an upward force. The net force on the blimp is close to zero (or positive, if it is going to rise). Of course as the atmosphere thins, the buoyancy force decreases, but so does gravity.
You bring up interesting points. I myself don't advocate extreme anti-smoking measures, like banning smoking in all public buildings. As long as restaurants have anti-smoking sections, I'm happy. Most people who smoke do know about the potential health risks, but don't stop for the same reasons as you - smoking does have a pleasurable effect. That's why it's addictive.
I just want to ask you something, though. When you say you feel healthier now that you've started smoking again, do you mean healthier than just after you quit, or healthier than before you ever started? The former sounds plausible though the latter doesn't. Real withdrawl from tobacco has a lot of consequences which are hard to cope with. Changes in appetite, anxiety level, mood, immune system, etc., etc. I don't smoke but both my parents used to and quit. My mother said it took her years to get over the desire for a cigarette - but she still thinks it's the best choice she could have made for herself.
What we need to do is find a way to counteract the adverse effects of smoking.
Here I disagree - I think we need to focus more on helping people quit. I know several people who have tried multiple times to quit and always ended up smoking more than ever, for the same reasons you talked about. And there's only so much you can do to prevent damage when you're breathing in tar and ash all day long.
Since you seem to have some background in the subject, maybe you could help me understand how this "dipstick" tool works? They didn't seem to go into any details in the article.
I can only guess that the dipstick is coated with something that will respond to particular molecules or proteins associated with cancer cells. Would that be plausible? Do throat cancers share some particular pathology that can be detected with a chemical strip test? Or do I totally misunderstand?
I'd be interested to hear from anyone more knowledgeable on the subject. I looked around for some links, but didn't find any specific papers on this...
Of course any kind of advance in cancer medicine is a good thing, but when it comes to throat cancer, I can think of better things to spend money on - like anti-smoking programs.
Tobacco use is by far the most common risk factor for cancers of the mouth and throat. Both smoking and "smokeless" tobacco (snuff and chewing tobacco) increase the risk of developing cancer in the mouth or throat.
Smokers are about 6 times more likely to have cancer of the oropharynx than people who don't smoke. All forms of smoking are linked to these cancers, including cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. Tobacco smoke can cause cancer anywhere in the oropharynx as well as in the lungs, the bladder, and many other organs in the body. Pipe smoking is particularly linked with lesions of the lips, where the pipe comes in contact with the tissue.
Smokeless tobacco is linked with cancers of the cheeks, gums, and inner surface of the lips. The risk of these cancers is as much as 50 times higher in people who use smokeless tobacco than in those who do not. Cancers caused by smokeless tobacco use often begin as leukoplakia or erythroplakia.
It's horrible that so many people are finally starting to live the effects of being longtime smokers... and yet many people who end up with throat cancer or emphysema are still unable to quit. There's nothing wrong with treating throat cancer in a smoker, of course, but in the larger perspective, I see it as too little too late.
Quite true. It only jumped out at me because it seemed odd to compare a 3-dimensional object to a two-dimensional one. If they had specified how deep under alaska to measure in the 3rd dimension to obtain a volume of the same size, it would have made more sense.
I also noticed it because the tendancy of science writers to compare large things with "the size of France" has become a running joke. In addition to the Olympus Mons example, you might be interested to know that the Ross Ice Shelf (the largest ice shelf of Antarctica)is about the size of France. And another volcano (on Io) spews out ash that covers an area of (guess what...) the size of France!
I'm surprised I never heard of this project before! It's a great idea - astroids contain various minerals that can be used to trace the evolution of the solar system. Of course we have some access to this info from the odd meteorite, but I would guess that rock from the astroid belt will be more "pristine".
The only drawback I see for this project is that it is only going to sample the surface of the asteroid, which is the region most exposed to cosmic radiation, cratering, and accumulated dust. Naturally there is still something to be learned from that, but I hope this is just a prelude to a more advanced mission to bore larger samples from the asteroides. I imagine that the difficulties in doing that come mostly from stabilizing the spacecraft, given that it's likely the asteroids are actually loosely bound collections of the rubble left over from previous collisions. Of course, if they're not, that would be interesting too.
And slightly off topic - I think this comparison is funny:
The material in the belt... ranges in size from dust particles to rock chunks as big as Alaska.
Exactly how do you compare a large, roughly spherical mass to "the size of Alaska"? Maybe they mean the surface area is the same? The surface area of Alaska is about 1.5 million km-squared; the surface area of Ceres, the largest asteroid, is about 11 million km-squared - that's more like the total area of the US (9.6 million km-squared)!
Or maybe they meant to compare the radii? If Alaska were circular, it would have a radius of 690 km. The radius of Ceres is 466 km. Interestingly, a better comparison in this case would be the size of France (effective radius of 420 km), and France is of course the international standard for measuring astronomical objects... Did you know that the base of Olympus Mons is also about the size of France?
One thing works wonders in overcoming shyness, and that is large quantities of alcohol. In my experience, this seems to work quite well. And once you've broken the ice while drunk, it's easier to have a sober interaction later!:)
So it does. When watching ads for anti-anxiety medications (Do you feel too inhibited at social gatherings? Do you have a hard time talking to people?) it seemed like they might as well have been advertising alcohol.
I have to add, though, that depending on how much you drink, I wouldn't always count on your last statement being true...;)
I think there's a difference between failing to develop a given skill and having a disability that prevents you from developing that skill. From what I've read, people with autism don't learn to respond to social cues - they learn to watch for body language, etc, and also learn to identify those cues with the interpretations other people would give them. It's more like learning a way around your disability than changing it, and that is what I think is the difference between a weakness and a disability.
Shyness, I think, can be one or the other. Forcing yourself to interact with people may help you (and that's great), but it doesn't work for everybody. I have been terribly shy my whole life, and even though I do force myself to interact with people, it never really gets less painful. And I would never take a job that required me to be outgoing because I just don't think that's realistic for me, just as taking a job that requires heavy math may not be realistic for him.
Re:The only real answer is to reorganize society.
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
Suburbia is the killer. If our lives could be structured such that cars were not *necessary*, we can do fine. Residential infill, cohousing, mixed use zoning are all steps in the right direction.
I recently read the book "Dead Cities" by Mike Davis. One of the points he makes is exactly as you suggest - that poor urban planning and lack of foresight are the root cause of many environmental problems. He picks Las Vegas as the prime example: poor zoning, irresponsible water use, shortsighted transportation solutions, etc. I'd recommend the book to anyone interested in urban planning and its effects on the environment and society.
Well, I enjoy being pedantic, so I looked these up in the OED, and I believe "comprise" is the better choice in this context.
Relevant definitions under comprise: 5. Of things immaterial: a. To take in or include; as opposed to leaving out. b. To embrace as its contents, matter, or subject. 6. pass. To be included, embraced, comprehended: a. in (or within) a document or its scope, in a class, or group. b. in, within a space or time, between limits. c. under a heading, title, common term, division. d. To be comprehended summarily. e. Said especially of the things that collectively make up the whole of the thing or class spoken of.
Definitions under constitute: (1-3 are obsolete) 4. To set up, establish, found (an institution, etc.). 5. To frame, form, make (by combination of elements); esp. in pass. to have a constitution or make of a specified sort. (Very frequent in reference to the bodily or mental constitution.) 6. To make (a person or thing) something; to establish or set up as. (With obj. and compl.) Cf. 2. 7. (with simple obj.) To make (a thing) what it is; to give its being to, form, determine. 8. To make up, form, compose; to be the elements or material of which the thing spoken of consists. (Correlative to CONSIST 7.)
It seems to me that "constitute" is only correct when talking about physical components of a group or object, whereas "comprise" can refer to immaterial groups.
I don't have my copy of Strunk & White on hand, and couldn't find it on-line, so I'm not sure what part of it you're referring to. Out of curiosity, do they specifically discuss the different usage of the "comprise" and "constitute"?
I think the real question is: Would you rather die in 10 years from cancer that you didn't know about, or in 20 years from cancer that you fought? Even incurable cancer can sometimes be slowed. Either way, I think it's a personal decision.
I tried to read it, but never got past the word "anatomynaughts" in the second paragraph. Are those like a cross between astronauts, anatomy, and... nothing?
Seriously, if you're going to make up words, at least spell them correctly.:P
Those look really good, especially for older people with reduced mobility (which seems to be one of their major target demographics). But what I would love to be able to buy would be some kind of hybrid model. The motor would reduce the exertion required, while being able to pedal would extend the distance you could go on a single charge.
I didn't see anything in the posted links that said whether they were electric-only bikes or hybrid, but it does look like you can already get electric hybrid bikes: Electric Bikes Northwest. I would happily buy something like that over a car, assuming I could afford either, which isn't the case anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
CAE's latest project, included a mobile DNA extraction laboratory for testing food products for possible transgenic contamination. It was this equipment which triggered the Kafkaesque chain of events.
FBI field and laboratory tests have shown that Kurtz's equipment was not used for any illegal purpose. In fact, it is not even _possible_ to use this equipment for the production or weaponization of dangerous germs. Furthermore, any person in the US may legally obtain and possess such equipment.
If that's true (and the quote does come from the CAE defense fund page - obviously a biased source), it doesn't seem to me like anyone could have much of a case against him.
I think this is just a symptom of a more general problem - most people don't understand the biology of transgenic food, and ignorance breeds fear and suspicion. There's also the conflation of ideas between transgenic plants and bioterror organisms. Yes, some of the same lab techniques of gene manipulation might be used in both, but "transgenic" seems to get confused with "harmful".
I would be awfully surprised if this guy was growing something in his home that caused the death of his wife. And if he did, chances are it came in on whatever material he was studying - in which case that's who should be investigated.
On the one hand, I think Mr. Kurtz probably should have set up a lab in his university rather than doing it in his home. But to lose your wife (most likely to some freak of chance - an undetected heart problem, or whatever) and your livelihood as well, is a steep price to pay.
I didn't mean to imply that people should junk all the deceased's files just after the funeral. Holding on to something for the sentimental value is different than what I meant by preserving data indiscriminately (presumeably for its "intrinsic" or "historical" value). And please don't assume that I speak without experience...
Good point. By saying information used to be more "ephemeral", I meant to refer to the total quantity of information that a person might encounter during their life. In the past, a much smaller fraction of that data would have been recorded and preserved, because the costs were greater.
What I should have said was that data is much easier and cheaper to create in the modern era. Paper publishing takes more time and resources, and so there tends to be some minimum threshold for what's important enough to store that way, and whatever doesn't make the cut is essentially "lost". Electronic data storage has recently gotten affordable enough to offer essentially unlimited capacity.
So it's much easier for someone living now to accumulate and store gigabytes of personal miscellany than it was 100 or even 10 years ago. The costs of the medium itself no longer requires us to distinguish between "important" data and all the other stuff, and we are still stuck in the mindset that all data is valuable and should be preserved. This is why I think that even though we are (temporarily) released from the economic pressure to let data be "forgotten", we need to free ourselves from the compulsion to save anything and everything.
While terminally ill, Mr. Cochran, a programmer, left a full list of passwords for his work files with his employer, Mr. Purnell said. But he failed to do the same thing with the personal files, so they are now inaccessible.
Maybe he didn't want anyone reading his personal files? That seems like the most obvious explanation to me.
I think that as a culture, we need to learn how to let go of things. In the past, information was more ephemeral; books would decay or be lost over time. Just because we have the capacity virtually eternal data storage doesn't mean we should.
In a way, I think holding on to every minute detail of someone's life devalues the things of importance they left behind. Do you think they really want to be remembered by their tax returns? Would they have wanted their grandchildren to inherit their file of meeting notes? If someone wants to leave important digital information to posterity, they should put that intent in their will, and (*gasp*) maybe even make a hard copy of it.
Obviously if someone dies suddenly, that may not be an option. But my point is that we, the survivors, need to relearn how to distinguish between valuable data and stuff better left forgotten.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the obvious solution to me is just to create a guest accout without admin priviledges. Let the renters know when they move in that if they want to install any special programs (if they want to use the computer to play some game, for example) that they have to let you know at the beginning of the summer so you can install it. As long as it's clear in advance what they can and can't use the computer for I don't see a problem. Also, if you aren't going to be around to administer the computer make sure they know that - preferably in writing, since if they come with the expectation of being able to use the computer for work, and something goes wrong, they will be looking for someone to blame.
Low calorie diets seem to work by slowing down your metabolism. So you're living longer by aging slower, but everything else slows down too - including mental and sexual function. (Never mind that few people can keep up a low calorie diet for very long without giving in to hunger and rebound weight gain, with all associated health problems.)
An interesting study on the effects of severe calorie restriction was done in the 40s. The volunteers in the study showed side effects such as moodiness, food obsession, decreased libido, general apathy, etc. This was on a 1500 calorie diet for just 6 months, and when the study was over many of the volunteers (all male) experienced binge eating and weight gain. Sorry I couldn't find any good online info, but the reference is: Ancel Keyes, et al, "The Biology of Human Starvation" (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1950)
Given the choice between a long life of deprivation and a somewhat shorter life of all-things-in-moderation, I'll take the latter...
The MIT Stata Center page has a link to their time-lapse webcam which captured the whole thing being built... I watched it for a while but it really wasn't all that exciting. Maybe with some editing (like taking out the night-time parts) it would have been more interesting to watch, but then I guess it would lose some of the authenticity...
Any portion of sky which doesn't have a star/galaxy in it is black, black black!
Not totally black... there is a fair bit of light that reflects off dust in the solar system (zodiacal light). So it's entirely possible for this galaxy to appear 101% as bright as the background sky.
And just for general info... there are lots of low-surface brightness galaxies out there - Malin1 for example.
My experience has been that most women want to control everything. They can waste time/money doing 'their thing', and you can't say anything about it. But when the tables are turned, you can't do the same.
My experience has been that most ACs like to post unrealistic stereotypes under the guise of insightful commentary.
I find it hard to believe that one sex is more selfish than the other by any objective measure. If that has been your experience, remember the despair.com poster: the only consistent feature of all your dissatisfying relationships is you.
I couldn't have said it better myself... and I'm female.
Knowing someone is willing to turn his/her attention to you without looking bored or distracted is a sign of respect. That's what's important, in my opinion.
My other question is what sort of energies are we talking about here since protons are fairly massive? I would guess in the 100+ GeV range (ie. particle accelerator size). Any thoughts or better links?
Actually when it comes to cosmic rays, the spectrum extends to the EeV range and even beyond. Here's an energy spectrum. In fact I'm doing my PhD on the study of cosmic rays at energies 10-1000 EeV, much higher energies than can be achieved in current particle accelerators.
I think they often put up artist's conceptions in order to illustrate non-visual data (spectral lines, etc). What bugs me in this case, though, is that it is labelled a "photo"... Now I know, and you know, that if anything this is a photo of a painting. But not everybody who reads the daily news would immediately realize that.
Last year I taught a course on the role of art in astronomy. "Artists interpretations" have a significant impact in shaping the public's impressions of astronomy, for better or for worse. The good side of it is of course that a picture can convey information that would be too abstract or technical to put in a news story the average person wants to read. The bad side of it is that such pictures often sensationalize astronomy in a way that distorts people's ideas or what science is actually capable of.
In this story for example, I think it would have been really great if they had included, along with the artist's conception, a visual of the actual data. That way people would be able to see for themselves what is observation and what is extrapolation.
Prettying up astronomical images is great for drawing people into the subject, but at somepoint it starts to become misleading. A LOT of people don't realize that all those beautiful Hubble pictures are shown in artificial color! Of course there's good reason for that - we couldn't see all of the wavelengths with our eyes anyway - but if the ultimate goal (and I believe it is) is to educate people about astronomy, we need to make more of an effort to give them the full picture (so to speak...) I think "the average joe" would be able to appreciate it much more than most scientists would seem to give him credit for.
The concept of escape velocity doesn't really apply here - that formula assumes gravity is the only force acting on the object. The point of a blimp is that you can take advantage of the buoyancy of helium in air, which provides an upward force. The net force on the blimp is close to zero (or positive, if it is going to rise). Of course as the atmosphere thins, the buoyancy force decreases, but so does gravity.
You bring up interesting points. I myself don't advocate extreme anti-smoking measures, like banning smoking in all public buildings. As long as restaurants have anti-smoking sections, I'm happy. Most people who smoke do know about the potential health risks, but don't stop for the same reasons as you - smoking does have a pleasurable effect. That's why it's addictive.
I just want to ask you something, though. When you say you feel healthier now that you've started smoking again, do you mean healthier than just after you quit, or healthier than before you ever started? The former sounds plausible though the latter doesn't. Real withdrawl from tobacco has a lot of consequences which are hard to cope with. Changes in appetite, anxiety level, mood, immune system, etc., etc. I don't smoke but both my parents used to and quit. My mother said it took her years to get over the desire for a cigarette - but she still thinks it's the best choice she could have made for herself.
What we need to do is find a way to counteract the adverse effects of smoking.
Here I disagree - I think we need to focus more on helping people quit. I know several people who have tried multiple times to quit and always ended up smoking more than ever, for the same reasons you talked about. And there's only so much you can do to prevent damage when you're breathing in tar and ash all day long.
Since you seem to have some background in the subject, maybe you could help me understand how this "dipstick" tool works? They didn't seem to go into any details in the article.
I can only guess that the dipstick is coated with something that will respond to particular molecules or proteins associated with cancer cells. Would that be plausible? Do throat cancers share some particular pathology that can be detected with a chemical strip test? Or do I totally misunderstand?
I'd be interested to hear from anyone more knowledgeable on the subject. I looked around for some links, but didn't find any specific papers on this...
Some facts pulled from eMedicine Health:
It's horrible that so many people are finally starting to live the effects of being longtime smokers... and yet many people who end up with throat cancer or emphysema are still unable to quit. There's nothing wrong with treating throat cancer in a smoker, of course, but in the larger perspective, I see it as too little too late.
Quite true. It only jumped out at me because it seemed odd to compare a 3-dimensional object to a two-dimensional one. If they had specified how deep under alaska to measure in the 3rd dimension to obtain a volume of the same size, it would have made more sense.
:)
I also noticed it because the tendancy of science writers to compare large things with "the size of France" has become a running joke. In addition to the Olympus Mons example, you might be interested to know that the Ross Ice Shelf (the largest ice shelf of Antarctica)is about the size of France. And another volcano (on Io) spews out ash that covers
an area of (guess what...) the size of France!
And for those who now want to know how big France is, exactly - well, it's 1/3 the size of Quebec, and more to the point, about the same as the area covered by coral reef worldwide.
I'm surprised I never heard of this project before! It's a great idea - astroids contain various minerals that can be used to trace the evolution of the solar system. Of course we have some access to this info from the odd meteorite, but I would guess that rock from the astroid belt will be more "pristine".
... ranges in size from dust particles to rock chunks as big as Alaska.
The only drawback I see for this project is that it is only going to sample the surface of the asteroid, which is the region most exposed to cosmic radiation, cratering, and accumulated dust. Naturally there is still something to be learned from that, but I hope this is just a prelude to a more advanced mission to bore larger samples from the asteroides. I imagine that the difficulties in doing that come mostly from stabilizing the spacecraft, given that it's likely the asteroids are actually loosely bound collections of the rubble left over from previous collisions. Of course, if they're not, that would be interesting too.
And slightly off topic - I think this comparison is funny:
The material in the belt
Exactly how do you compare a large, roughly spherical mass to "the size of Alaska"? Maybe they mean the surface area is the same? The surface area of Alaska is about 1.5 million km-squared; the surface area of Ceres, the largest asteroid, is about 11 million km-squared - that's more like the total area of the US (9.6 million km-squared)!
Or maybe they meant to compare the radii? If Alaska were circular, it would have a radius of 690 km. The radius of Ceres is 466 km. Interestingly, a better comparison in this case would be the size of France (effective radius of 420 km), and France is of course the international standard for measuring astronomical objects... Did you know that the base of Olympus Mons is also about the size of France?
One thing works wonders in overcoming shyness, and that is large quantities of alcohol. In my experience, this seems to work quite well. And once you've broken the ice while drunk, it's easier to have a sober interaction later! :)
;)
So it does. When watching ads for anti-anxiety medications (Do you feel too inhibited at social gatherings? Do you have a hard time talking to people?) it seemed like they might as well have been advertising alcohol.
I have to add, though, that depending on how much you drink, I wouldn't always count on your last statement being true...
I think there's a difference between failing to develop a given skill and having a disability that prevents you from developing that skill. From what I've read, people with autism don't learn to respond to social cues - they learn to watch for body language, etc, and also learn to identify those cues with the interpretations other people would give them. It's more like learning a way around your disability than changing it, and that is what I think is the difference between a weakness and a disability.
Shyness, I think, can be one or the other. Forcing yourself to interact with people may help you (and that's great), but it doesn't work for everybody. I have been terribly shy my whole life, and even though I do force myself to interact with people, it never really gets less painful. And I would never take a job that required me to be outgoing because I just don't think that's realistic for me, just as taking a job that requires heavy math may not be realistic for him.
Suburbia is the killer. If our lives could be structured such that cars were not *necessary*, we can do fine. Residential infill, cohousing, mixed use zoning are all steps in the right direction.
I recently read the book "Dead Cities" by Mike Davis. One of the points he makes is exactly as you suggest - that poor urban planning and lack of foresight are the root cause of many environmental problems. He picks Las Vegas as the prime example: poor zoning, irresponsible water use, shortsighted transportation solutions, etc. I'd recommend the book to anyone interested in urban planning and its effects on the environment and society.
Well, I enjoy being pedantic, so I looked these up in the OED, and I believe "comprise" is the better choice in this context.
Relevant definitions under comprise:
5. Of things immaterial:
a. To take in or include; as opposed to leaving out.
b. To embrace as its contents, matter, or subject.
6. pass. To be included, embraced, comprehended:
a. in (or within) a document or its scope, in a class, or group.
b. in, within a space or time, between limits.
c. under a heading, title, common term, division.
d. To be comprehended summarily.
e. Said especially of the things that collectively make up the whole of the thing or class spoken of.
Definitions under constitute:
(1-3 are obsolete)
4. To set up, establish, found (an institution, etc.).
5. To frame, form, make (by combination of elements); esp. in pass. to have a constitution or make of a specified sort. (Very frequent in reference to the bodily or mental constitution.)
6. To make (a person or thing) something; to establish or set up as. (With obj. and compl.) Cf. 2.
7. (with simple obj.) To make (a thing) what it is; to give its being to, form, determine.
8. To make up, form, compose; to be the elements or material of which the thing spoken of consists. (Correlative to CONSIST 7.)
It seems to me that "constitute" is only correct when talking about physical components of a group or object, whereas "comprise" can refer to immaterial groups.
I don't have my copy of Strunk & White on hand, and couldn't find it on-line, so I'm not sure what part of it you're referring to. Out of curiosity, do they specifically discuss the different usage of the "comprise" and "constitute"?
I think the real question is: Would you rather die in 10 years from cancer that you didn't know about, or in 20 years from cancer that you fought? Even incurable cancer can sometimes be slowed. Either way, I think it's a personal decision.
I tried to read it, but never got past the word "anatomynaughts" in the second paragraph. Are those like a cross between astronauts, anatomy, and... nothing?
:P
Seriously, if you're going to make up words, at least spell them correctly.
Those look really good, especially for older people with reduced mobility (which seems to be one of their major target demographics). But what I would love to be able to buy would be some kind of hybrid model. The motor would reduce the exertion required, while being able to pedal would extend the distance you could go on a single charge.
I didn't see anything in the posted links that said whether they were electric-only bikes or hybrid, but it does look like you can already get electric hybrid bikes: Electric Bikes Northwest. I would happily buy something like that over a car, assuming I could afford either, which isn't the case anyway...