Well the first telescope was invented in 1609 which means that this supernova must have happened after 1609. Considering it happened 169,000 light years away, the emissions must have travelled faster then the speed of light to reach us in 1987 (which is when it was first detected).
If you know so much about the speed of light and things: How do you define before and after in that context?
Special relativity states that causality depends on your inertial system.
From the point of view of a photon emitted by the supernova the invention of the telescope happened before the supernova.
The photon arrives on earth literally in no time and hits a telescope. BTW: In that context the telescope is very, very flat;-)
How about 2.2mW per eye? Whether they achieve this by a 10mW signal very close to the eye or with a kW signal in another building does not really matter. Eyes do not vary that much in size that the intensity you are looking for is very inaccurately measured by this value.
"Not only are US nuclear reactors are significantly safer than Chernobyl could have even dreamt of being,"
There were papers in the seventies by US and european lobby groups praising the inheren safety features of the russian reactor designs to be able to install these cheaper models in the west.
Of cours a few years later they say that they always knew the dangers of these types and that the western types are inherently safe. Both stories are told by the same people. You decide which one to believe.
Ah and don't forget that between the fourties and the seventies the military told everybody that the radiation from the test sites is not dangerous. And the plutonium toxity experiments wiht humans of course never happend.
"but the majority of fault with Chernobyl was because of human stupidy."
And you don't have humans in the US.
IIRC it was in 1975 that the electric cabling of a US reactor burned out completely because technicians checked the cabling with a lighter.
>This is recognised by governments. For example, in Ireland, ALL income from patent royalties is TAX FREE
Which causes HUGE problems within the EU because it makes it extremely easy for big companies to transfer profits to ireland and thus evading taxes in other EU countries.
Yet another disadvantage for small companies.
>Would you want someone to move in and take something that belongs to you, and not pay compensation?
Taking something away from you is something completely different from building a new one the same way you did. To have this monopolized is a rather new concept in the western world. That this monopoly on ideas is not an obvious natural right is visible in the law by the fact that patents expire whereas real property right do not.
OTOH, the US has a very high level of wealth and technology and very high living standard which makes it relatively easy to save energy. Poor countries on the otherhand still need a lot of development and industrial growth and still agreed to the same savings.
Its easier for an SUV owner to save 5% of his fuel consumption by getting a new car than it is for a horse owner.
Sometimes it's also claimed that Russia had an unfair advantage because the crash of the russian economy allready saved a lot of CO2 so that russia allread meets the kyoto goal. But if you think about it that is not really unfair because the strategy of crashing the economy is open to each country.
Well, there allready is JPEG2000. It is a lot better than JPEG and it is cover by patents.
It is pretty obvious that the format and the public did not benefit from the patent.
Without patents every digital camera around there would allreday be able to store 25% more images.
This is especially sad if you consider that a lot of the work on wavelets is goverment funded research, so taxpayers really should benefit from it's results.
The resolution is limited both by the resolution of your retina and by the aperture size of the iris. (Rayleigh's Criterion, related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)
For rather obvious reasons both limits result in approximately the same resolution.
To match that resolution the lasers aperture actually has to be at least as large as the iris, which is rather unlikely for a system build to be small. </nitpicking>
Hmm. 1700 miles per gallon that's about 723km per liter which corresponds to 1.38ml per km which is about 0.00000000138 cubic meter per meter which is 1380 square microns.
This means the fuel consumption of this car is about the size of a 32-Bit SRAM. That's small.
Slashdot Mirror
If it supports SIP calls it supports PC-to-POTS and POTS-to-PC.
You can pay external SIP-gateways for PC-to-POTS. You can POTS-to-PC for free.
The beauty of it is that you can rent phone numbers in as many area codes or countries as you like and route them to your computer.
If you know so much about the speed of light and things: How do you define before and after in that context? Special relativity states that causality depends on your inertial system. From the point of view of a photon emitted by the supernova the invention of the telescope happened before the supernova. The photon arrives on earth literally in no time and hits a telescope. BTW: In that context the telescope is very, very flat ;-)
RIP
How about 2.2mW per eye?
Whether they achieve this by a 10mW signal very close to the eye or with a kW signal in another building does not really matter.
Eyes do not vary that much in size that the intensity you are looking for is very inaccurately measured by this value.
You are wrong.
> What's next? Virtual commodities trading?
Imagine, some day people might even pay for the right to copy an MP3 song.
"Not only are US nuclear reactors are significantly safer than Chernobyl could have even dreamt of being," There were papers in the seventies by US and european lobby groups praising the inheren safety features of the russian reactor designs to be able to install these cheaper models in the west. Of cours a few years later they say that they always knew the dangers of these types and that the western types are inherently safe. Both stories are told by the same people. You decide which one to believe. Ah and don't forget that between the fourties and the seventies the military told everybody that the radiation from the test sites is not dangerous. And the plutonium toxity experiments wiht humans of course never happend. "but the majority of fault with Chernobyl was because of human stupidy." And you don't have humans in the US. IIRC it was in 1975 that the electric cabling of a US reactor burned out completely because technicians checked the cabling with a lighter.
>This is recognised by governments. For example, in Ireland, ALL income from patent royalties is TAX FREE Which causes HUGE problems within the EU because it makes it extremely easy for big companies to transfer profits to ireland and thus evading taxes in other EU countries. Yet another disadvantage for small companies.
>Would you want someone to move in and take something that belongs to you, and not pay compensation?
Taking something away from you is something completely different from building a new one the same way you did.
To have this monopolized is a rather new concept in the western world. That this monopoly on ideas is not an obvious natural right is visible in the law by the fact that patents expire whereas real property right do not.
OTOH, the US has a very high level of wealth and technology and very high living standard which makes it relatively easy to save energy.
Poor countries on the otherhand still need a lot of development and industrial growth and still agreed to the same savings.
Its easier for an SUV owner to save 5% of his fuel consumption by getting a new car than it is for a horse owner.
Sometimes it's also claimed that Russia had an unfair advantage because the crash of the russian economy allready saved a lot of CO2 so that russia allread meets the kyoto goal. But if you think about it that is not really unfair because the strategy of crashing the economy is open to each country.
Well, there allready is JPEG2000. It is a lot better than JPEG and it is cover by patents.
It is pretty obvious that the format and the public did not benefit from the patent.
Without patents every digital camera around there would allreday be able to store 25% more images.
This is especially sad if you consider that a lot of the work on wavelets is goverment funded research, so taxpayers really should benefit from it's results.
"as DRAM already offers more than ten times density compared to SRAM at much better cost"
It is the density that generates the cost benefit. For the same chip area and technology generation DRAMs are considerable more expensive than SRAMs.
It is the cost per cell not the cost per area that is less for DRAMs.
The resolution is limited both by the resolution of your retina and by the aperture size of the iris.
(Rayleigh's Criterion, related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle)
For rather obvious reasons both limits result in approximately the same resolution.
To match that resolution the lasers aperture actually has to be at least as large as the iris, which is rather unlikely for a system build to be small.
</nitpicking>
But the production failures are proportional to p to the power of 1 billion (p^1000000000) which is a problem even for very small values of p.
Great, AdWare ads in your man pages and pdf's.
Hmm. 1700 miles per gallon that's about 723km per liter which corresponds to 1.38ml per km which is about 0.00000000138 cubic meter per meter which is 1380 square microns. This means the fuel consumption of this car is about the size of a 32-Bit SRAM. That's small.