As far as I am aware, the one can obtain mesenchymal stem cells (the kind the researchers found in wisdom teeth) in garden variety bone marrow. The kind every has. Getting bone marrow samples is slightly unpleasant (about on the level of having your wisdom teeth removed) and technically quite easy.
oh please. I was a police reporter in a 100K city for several years and got to know cops. I once sat around in the station and heard these guys trading stories about getting sexual favors from females to get out of speeding tickets (they didn't know I was in the next room, obviously). I guarantee you, policemen are bribed every day around the country with no repercussions.
Yeah, and I heard the same stories in my high school gym locker room. And they're probably just as accurate. Wishful thinking does not get you laid.
Right, the 'Economists". Those clever people that think exponential growth can go on forever. The ones that agree with everything and nothing. The really clever ones that are guiding us through these hard times.
Thanks, but I'll stick to tea leaves or Ouija boards.
Go read something useful for a change.
Nope, no law. But it's a relatively new technique and people are going to play around with it. Some of those pics are interesting artistically, most don't move me much. But as somebody upstream pointed out, the best HDR images are going to be those that you don't think are HDR. The photographer will use the tonality and intensity to point to something they want your eye to go to and that's it.
No cartoon colors or cheesy halos.
In a couple of years those sort of HDR photos will be like blinky tags - still around but fortunately very rare. Photographers will be playing with some other digital artifice. Like Flash.
That's one of the problems with HDR photography. The light to dark transitions just don't look quite right and so the scene has an 'unreal' appearance. Either washed out or cartoonish.
You see that all of the time in still HDR photography and I think it has to do with the limitations of the final media - movie screens, paper, computer screens - that do not reproduce the eye's ability to deal with contrast well. In prints, you can work with this and minimize but not completely remove the effect. I imagine that they could tweak their algorithms a little better but Internet video isn't a particularly high quality visual experience in the first place so there well be some limitations in how well they can do it.
This is nice tear down of the executive summary. The Oildrum has had an excellent running commentary on the Macondo Spill. It's primarily a 'Peak Oil' site but it is done quite well. My favorite quote from some apparently ancient oil guy named 'Rockman' who's major failing in life seems to be a horrible addiction to Blue Bell ice cream:
Here's what I saw as critical aspects of the executive summary from the BP report.
"Indications of influx with an increase in drill pipe pressure are discernable in real-time data from approximately 40 minutes before the rig crew took action to control the well. The rig crew's first apparent well control actions occurred after hydrocarbons were rapidly flowing to the surface. The rig crew did not recognize the influx and did not act to control the well until hydrocarbons had passed through the BOP and into the riser."
"Well control response actions failed to regain control of the well. If fluids had been diverted overboard, rather than to the MGS, there may have been more time to respond, and the consequences of the accident may have been reduced."
And a viable excuse offered: "The explosions and fire very likely disabled the emergency disconnect sequence, the primary emergency method available to the rig personnel, which was designed to seal the wellbore and disconnect the marine riser from the well.
Given a number of highly questionable decisions, BP appears to volunteer to take a few arrows themselves: "The team did not identify any single action or inaction that caused this accident. Rather, a complex and interlinked series of mechanical failures, human judgments, engineering design, operational implementation and team interfaces came together to allow the initiation and escalation of the accident. Multiple companies, work teams and circumstances were involved over time."
So BP may claim a collective blame but I go back to their lead off position: ""the crew... did not act to control the well". If you followed the debate between syn and I you can see how I take BP's report: yes...BP and others made mistakes. BUT the TO drill crew "did not act to control the well". And that lack of action allowed the kick to turn into a blow out that killed 11 hands and wrecked the GOM.
Opinions will vary, of course. And in the end there will be legal judgment rendered. But each person, including the surviving participants, will come to their own conlusions.
Summary of the Summary: BP did a bunch of stupid things, but it was TO's (Trans Ocean - the rig owner) responsibility to control the well even if BP purposely designed the rig to fail. They didn't do that. And Boom.
IMHO this is not a shot across the bow of Transocean...it's an arrow aimed straight at their heart: "the crew... did not act to control the well".
Can someone decipher that last sentence for me? I've read it several times and I can't seem to grasp what it is saying.
So in virtue of what is it true that there could have been Aliens when in fact there are none, and when, moreover, nothing that exists in fact could have been an Alien?
Plants are only able to convert about 5% of the light that hits them into energy. That low efficiency is adequate for them only because their energy requirements are so low. They barely move, and they don't have complex, power hungry brains.
You realize, of course, that your last sentence also describes the average American in their living room. Therefore, this plant based approach might be a good one to emulate in our goal to reduce petrochemical use.
I'm sorry... but either 21st century scientists are really lame, or we humans know *shit* about the universe and the laws that rule it. Wonder which one it is...
We don't know jack.
"The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine it, it's stranger than we can imagine it. (A. Einstein)
That said, flip this on its head and have the co-pilot assuming the role of a flight attendant or purser while the plane is on auto-pilot probably would be within regulations, although without quite the same degree of cost savings.
Fly on a small regional jet and you will see exactly that. One of the flight crew helps secure the cabin, glares at the idiot(s) trying to get their oh-so-important last text off and the moron(s) trying to stuff the results of their last shopping spree into the glove-box sized overhead bin.
He or she doesn't get you coffee or a magazine, but then again, nobody else does it either.
I assume that the shift in duties on the RJ is more along the lines of keeping weight down and the fact that a single cabin attendant can get the passengers out the door in the event of an emergency rather than cost savings per se.
But you're forgetting that the main duties of the cabin crew is to assist you in getting your lame ass out of the cabin in the unlikely, but potentially catastrophic event of a problem. Given the single digit intelligence of most of the flying public, I'm surprised that the FAA doesn't mandate a 1:1 passenger to cabin crew ratio. (If you can't tell, just finished another round of take-your-shoes-off, comrade).
Perhaps for particularly weird values of "efficient". If you look carefully at 'Nature' you see kludges upon kludges upon kludges. That's why molecular biology of organisms has been so hard to decipher. Natural selection has had millions of years to twiddle with things - therefore, if something works just a bit better (in terms of organism survival or reproduction) then it can be selected for. It may be a complex, error filled process that slows ten other processes down but given the enormous times that nature gets to play with it doesn't have to be elegant or efficient.
It just has to work a teeny bit better than before.
And of course, that doesn't even begin to talk about the anthropomorphic values that are associated with those adjectives.
As the remains of planetary building blocks, the asteroids may contain an incredible wealth of minerals, easily accessible compared to other planetary bodies, and easily evaluated. Picture gold nuggets in space.
Operative word: "may"
I however, doubt that asteroids contain an "incredible wealth of minerals. Useful mineral deposits on earth are formed from heating and pressure. It's unclear that asteroids are / were subject to these forces. It may just be a bunch of low grade rock.
The 'easily accessible / evaluated' part is also a bit premature. We've just barely landed a couple of robots on the surface of an asteroid. Bruce Willis still has his work cut out for him.
I own my own body so why can't I sell Haploid Genetic material to some research firm to do with what they please?
That's not exactly the problem. It what happens after the Egg + Sperm stage. The some magic occurs and you have a proto human that various and sundry groups are trying to give full human rights to. Exactly when the embryo becomes legally human is the issue. Not whether or not you can pretend that your travels to the darker side of the Internet is somehow helping the human condition.
Did you just try to Godwin this thread? If so, it was buried in one of the more convoluted, confused paragraphs I've seen in a long while. Perhaps I just misunderestimated you, but I really think you should put the keyboard down and go outside for a spell.
It was a joke, son. Nothing says 'pro' better than a needlessly large bank of color coded outputs with vaguely menacing icons or abbreviations crammed onto the backplate.
Slashdot Mirror
That's funny, I thought it was UP, UP, DOWN, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT, LEFT, RIGHT, B, A.
No wonder nothing happened. I'll try your sequence later today.
Word ran off with my wife and my dog!
Thanks for that tip. Only slightly less painful than using a hex editor. Or poking your eyes out.
Office automation at it's finest.
As far as I am aware, the one can obtain mesenchymal stem cells (the kind the researchers found in wisdom teeth) in garden variety bone marrow. The kind every has. Getting bone marrow samples is slightly unpleasant (about on the level of having your wisdom teeth removed) and technically quite easy.
So I don't really see the whoopy factor in this.
Yeah, and I heard the same stories in my high school gym locker room. And they're probably just as accurate. Wishful thinking does not get you laid.
Right, the 'Economists". Those clever people that think exponential growth can go on forever. The ones that agree with everything and nothing. The really clever ones that are guiding us through these hard times.
Thanks, but I'll stick to tea leaves or Ouija boards. Go read something useful for a change.
And a a bit more reading just might show you that it might be just a tad more complicated than you seem to believe.
Besides, coming across as an ass is rarely a useful form of debate unless your in politics.
Nope, no law. But it's a relatively new technique and people are going to play around with it. Some of those pics are interesting artistically, most don't move me much. But as somebody upstream pointed out, the best HDR images are going to be those that you don't think are HDR. The photographer will use the tonality and intensity to point to something they want your eye to go to and that's it.
No cartoon colors or cheesy halos.
In a couple of years those sort of HDR photos will be like blinky tags - still around but fortunately very rare. Photographers will be playing with some other digital artifice. Like Flash.
That's one of the problems with HDR photography. The light to dark transitions just don't look quite right and so the scene has an 'unreal' appearance. Either washed out or cartoonish.
You see that all of the time in still HDR photography and I think it has to do with the limitations of the final media - movie screens, paper, computer screens - that do not reproduce the eye's ability to deal with contrast well. In prints, you can work with this and minimize but not completely remove the effect. I imagine that they could tweak their algorithms a little better but Internet video isn't a particularly high quality visual experience in the first place so there well be some limitations in how well they can do it.
Summary of the Summary: BP did a bunch of stupid things, but it was TO's (Trans Ocean - the rig owner) responsibility to control the well even if BP purposely designed the rig to fail. They didn't do that. And Boom. IMHO this is not a shot across the bow of Transocean...it's an arrow aimed straight at their heart: "the crew... did not act to control the well".
Han Solo: "We're caught in a tweezer beam, it's pulling us in!"
No, it just doesn't work. Just doesn't set up the scene correctly at all.
vaj Daq vo' nuq 'oH 'oH teH vetlh pa' laH ghaj taH ghorgh Daq pa' 'oH pagh 'ej ghorgh pagh vetlh Daq laH ghaj taH?
I'm a bit rusty, but it does seem to parse out better in Klingon.
You realize, of course, that your last sentence also describes the average American in their living room. Therefore, this plant based approach might be a good one to emulate in our goal to reduce petrochemical use.
Well, various wikis agree with you. Even better, a biologist said it.
We don't know jack.
"The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine it, it's stranger than we can imagine it. (A. Einstein)
Fly on a small regional jet and you will see exactly that. One of the flight crew helps secure the cabin, glares at the idiot(s) trying to get their oh-so-important last text off and the moron(s) trying to stuff the results of their last shopping spree into the glove-box sized overhead bin.
He or she doesn't get you coffee or a magazine, but then again, nobody else does it either.
I assume that the shift in duties on the RJ is more along the lines of keeping weight down and the fact that a single cabin attendant can get the passengers out the door in the event of an emergency rather than cost savings per se.
But you're forgetting that the main duties of the cabin crew is to assist you in getting your lame ass out of the cabin in the unlikely, but potentially catastrophic event of a problem. Given the single digit intelligence of most of the flying public, I'm surprised that the FAA doesn't mandate a 1:1 passenger to cabin crew ratio. (If you can't tell, just finished another round of take-your-shoes-off, comrade).
You forgot economics.
Perhaps for particularly weird values of "efficient". If you look carefully at 'Nature' you see kludges upon kludges upon kludges. That's why molecular biology of organisms has been so hard to decipher. Natural selection has had millions of years to twiddle with things - therefore, if something works just a bit better (in terms of organism survival or reproduction) then it can be selected for. It may be a complex, error filled process that slows ten other processes down but given the enormous times that nature gets to play with it doesn't have to be elegant or efficient.
It just has to work a teeny bit better than before.
And of course, that doesn't even begin to talk about the anthropomorphic values that are associated with those adjectives.
Millions of years is a very, very long time.
Operative word: "may"
I however, doubt that asteroids contain an "incredible wealth of minerals. Useful mineral deposits on earth are formed from heating and pressure. It's unclear that asteroids are / were subject to these forces. It may just be a bunch of low grade rock.
The 'easily accessible / evaluated' part is also a bit premature. We've just barely landed a couple of robots on the surface of an asteroid. Bruce Willis still has his work cut out for him.
That's not exactly the problem. It what happens after the Egg + Sperm stage. The some magic occurs and you have a proto human that various and sundry groups are trying to give full human rights to. Exactly when the embryo becomes legally human is the issue. Not whether or not you can pretend that your travels to the darker side of the Internet is somehow helping the human condition.
Maybe he practices on Twitter a lot.
You've managed to Rule 34 a lightsaber
Nice work, bozo.
For content here at Slashdot. If you don't have the imagination to make up something, then redact some random shapes in a picture and call it 'news'.
Come on now guys. This is embarrassing.
Did you just try to Godwin this thread? If so, it was buried in one of the more convoluted, confused paragraphs I've seen in a long while. Perhaps I just misunderestimated you, but I really think you should put the keyboard down and go outside for a spell.
It was a joke, son. Nothing says 'pro' better than a needlessly large bank of color coded outputs with vaguely menacing icons or abbreviations crammed onto the backplate.