I say that somewhat jokingly, but picked L2 as an imperfect analogy. RAM or L3 could also work. But basically, it appears these rats can remember a larger short term list. Not the immediate data (wall in front of me / L1), not all data (everything learned to date / RAM), but a working set of reference data (maze directions / L2)
Again, this is just my half joking analogy. Please feel to modify or disregard.
The kill switch signal could be on the same frequency as the radar, thus shunted straight into the control circuity. No need for a separate antenna or circuit. The kill switch is just hidden on some IC that also processes the radar signal itself. The right kill signal comes in, the IC shuts down. If the radar has IFF capability, even better. Second signal to monkey with, and even easier to spoof.
My dad built a car with an overdrive. 6 speeds forward, 2 in reverse. No, not as fast in reverse as forward. But the idea of needing to shift while in reverse is pretty funny.
I'm not endorsing the author or the views, but it is an interesting read that I found quickly. New law vs Old law confuses a lot of folks. It's not highlighted well in the article, but the main difference is that Old was in place because it was right at the time and only applies to Jews. It was superseded by New law. Kind of like turning 18 and being covered by adult laws. Not combined, as some people try. i.e. The 10 commandments aren't a part of new law. Heck, technically you'd have to be Jewish and Christian to even consider applying old and new simultaneously. Christians still refer to Old testament because, hey, it's still got plenty of interesting theological stuff.
But, again, people get confused and try to mix the two and end up acting like jerks.
"It's still a cult if the leader hasn't died yet."
Arbitrary, but practical. Put's an interesting burden on anyone deciding to start their own religion.
There's only so many books you can fit into a course. I'd suggest getting subscriptions to Analog (thereby adding to the circulation of a favorite magazine of mine) or getting some short story anthologies.
Don't be upset with MS, be happy for Linux. In fact, with support built in, Linux will frequently be used to develop and test the hardware. So some of the early USB 3 products will be de facto optimized to run with Linux.
Whether broadband is defined as greater than 128 kpbs or 128 Gpbs makes little difference (ok, neglecting subsidies and such). Broadband is just a marketing term like low sodium or fuel efficient. It's the actual throughput of the service that counts. For example, I'd take 100 mpbs labeled as "slow" over 2 mbps broadband any day.
What is really needed is competition with a solid metric to compare services. For a metric, it should be something like the minimum throughput for 99% of customers 95% of the time (yeah, 1% of customers do worse and all do worse but only 5% of the time).
Getting actual competition in place, uh, that's beyond my pay grade.
The big jump in life expectancy didn't come from new technology. It came from wide spread adoption of old technology. Sewers, clean water, and garbage removal cut down the incidence of infectious disease. Healthy diet and hygiene help even further. Except for vaccinations and antibiotics, medicine adds far less to life expectancy than just avoiding wallowing in filth.
I beg to differ. ID is a theory, sort of like String Theory. They both explain a lot, but are pretty damn hard to test. The nice thing about science is that it doesn't care if your theory is crazy or not. It accepts all challengers, puts them through the ringer, and lets some survive a little longer than others. As an intellectual and philosophical exercise, ID theory is a good one. Is there a creator? Good question. Give us a hypothesis that can be tested and let's test it. That's science. Get results that contradict ID, so be it. Fix the theory or move on.
ID proponents however, are a different matter. They work from the assumption that the hypothesis is true and any contradictory data is in error.
Or another way to put it: ID theory could be scientific if handled properly, but ID proponents aren't scientists.
My wife is a middle school science teacher. I suggested she should tell the kids that learning science is like learning the cheat codes to the universe.
How about making that a bit more literal. Maybe concepts could be adapted to be "cheat codes" or "upgrades" in actual games. Think of how much time is spent in games trying to improve and optimize character, weapon, or vehicle abilities. What if you had a game that let you upgrade your weapons by applying new concepts. For example, complete a task and you are taught f=ma. You get to modify your weapon by choosing m. Next task and you are given more information, such as how a is a function of m. Start introducing more variables. Every variable and every interaction is a teachable concept.
Heck, eventually you could have some kid working on differential equations for orbital mechanics so that he can kick his buddy's ass during 5th period math. The kid discovers Holman transfers so that he has maximum weapons payload to dump on his friend.
Slashdot Mirror
Larger L2 cache.
I say that somewhat jokingly, but picked L2 as an imperfect analogy. RAM or L3 could also work. But basically, it appears these rats can remember a larger short term list. Not the immediate data (wall in front of me / L1), not all data (everything learned to date / RAM), but a working set of reference data (maze directions / L2)
Again, this is just my half joking analogy. Please feel to modify or disregard.
AT least the kids are protected from cosmic rays http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/44139/184/
The kill switch signal could be on the same frequency as the radar, thus shunted straight into the control circuity. No need for a separate antenna or circuit. The kill switch is just hidden on some IC that also processes the radar signal itself. The right kill signal comes in, the IC shuts down. If the radar has IFF capability, even better. Second signal to monkey with, and even easier to spoof.
My dad built a car with an overdrive. 6 speeds forward, 2 in reverse. No, not as fast in reverse as forward. But the idea of needing to shift while in reverse is pretty funny.
There was a story many years ago about red rat poison. One day they stopped making it red. The explanation was that the red dye caused cancer in rats.
Radar in a faraday cage?
Here's a confusing, but detailed explanation of why Christians can eat pork http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/574145/should_christians_eat_pork.html?cat=34
I'm not endorsing the author or the views, but it is an interesting read that I found quickly. New law vs Old law confuses a lot of folks. It's not highlighted well in the article, but the main difference is that Old was in place because it was right at the time and only applies to Jews. It was superseded by New law. Kind of like turning 18 and being covered by adult laws. Not combined, as some people try. i.e. The 10 commandments aren't a part of new law. Heck, technically you'd have to be Jewish and Christian to even consider applying old and new simultaneously. Christians still refer to Old testament because, hey, it's still got plenty of interesting theological stuff.
But, again, people get confused and try to mix the two and end up acting like jerks.
Not a problem. The glass will be scattered in you lap, permitting excellent reception again.
"It's still a cult if the leader hasn't died yet." Arbitrary, but practical. Put's an interesting burden on anyone deciding to start their own religion.
Endowment.
There's only so many books you can fit into a course. I'd suggest getting subscriptions to Analog (thereby adding to the circulation of a favorite magazine of mine) or getting some short story anthologies.
No, but the user might know how to correct for it.
Step 1: look up magnetic declination for your location (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/IGRF_2000_magnetic_declination.gif
Step 2: rotate the ankle bracelet to compensate.
Or stand where you know you are facing true north, then rotate anklet until it indicates true north.
You could try superglue for a temporary test.
It has little teeny tiny pipes, bellows, keyboard, and guy in a cape with a mask over half his face.
Seems they've been refining the idea: http://www.solareagle.com/sunmate_flash.html
http://www.businessbuzzwordbingo.com/
Don't be upset with MS, be happy for Linux. In fact, with support built in, Linux will frequently be used to develop and test the hardware. So some of the early USB 3 products will be de facto optimized to run with Linux.
Have you seen the ISS? The future is looking pretty organized. http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/177653main_UTBI1.jpg
Maybe it should be. Think of all the gamers that would buy into a service with lower latency to try and get an edge (real or not).
Whether broadband is defined as greater than 128 kpbs or 128 Gpbs makes little difference (ok, neglecting subsidies and such). Broadband is just a marketing term like low sodium or fuel efficient. It's the actual throughput of the service that counts. For example, I'd take 100 mpbs labeled as "slow" over 2 mbps broadband any day.
What is really needed is competition with a solid metric to compare services. For a metric, it should be something like the minimum throughput for 99% of customers 95% of the time (yeah, 1% of customers do worse and all do worse but only 5% of the time).
Getting actual competition in place, uh, that's beyond my pay grade.
The big jump in life expectancy didn't come from new technology. It came from wide spread adoption of old technology. Sewers, clean water, and garbage removal cut down the incidence of infectious disease. Healthy diet and hygiene help even further. Except for vaccinations and antibiotics, medicine adds far less to life expectancy than just avoiding wallowing in filth.
What they do with the weapons: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/world/americas/03venez.html?_r=1&hp
What violent games do: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/02/AR2008110202392.html
I beg to differ. ID is a theory, sort of like String Theory. They both explain a lot, but are pretty damn hard to test. The nice thing about science is that it doesn't care if your theory is crazy or not. It accepts all challengers, puts them through the ringer, and lets some survive a little longer than others. As an intellectual and philosophical exercise, ID theory is a good one. Is there a creator? Good question. Give us a hypothesis that can be tested and let's test it. That's science. Get results that contradict ID, so be it. Fix the theory or move on.
ID proponents however, are a different matter. They work from the assumption that the hypothesis is true and any contradictory data is in error.
Or another way to put it: ID theory could be scientific if handled properly, but ID proponents aren't scientists.
Those damn USC graduates! Worse than cats.
My wife is a middle school science teacher. I suggested she should tell the kids that learning science is like learning the cheat codes to the universe.
How about making that a bit more literal. Maybe concepts could be adapted to be "cheat codes" or "upgrades" in actual games. Think of how much time is spent in games trying to improve and optimize character, weapon, or vehicle abilities. What if you had a game that let you upgrade your weapons by applying new concepts. For example, complete a task and you are taught f=ma. You get to modify your weapon by choosing m. Next task and you are given more information, such as how a is a function of m. Start introducing more variables. Every variable and every interaction is a teachable concept.
Heck, eventually you could have some kid working on differential equations for orbital mechanics so that he can kick his buddy's ass during 5th period math. The kid discovers Holman transfers so that he has maximum weapons payload to dump on his friend.