Red-blue or shutters plus double frame rate aren't the only options. There's also differential polarization and double the resolution. All we have to do is turn half the LED's 90 degrees and enable the proper video format and polarized glasses will do the job of red-blue ones - except you lose the "polarization" channel and half the resolution instead of the "color" channel. And lets face it, you wouldn't notice if you lose your already tiny ability to discern polarization.
Easy, the TV. Why? Because it's easy to implement with LED's, and we already have LED TV's. Even if no 3D programs are available (and with movies coming out in 3D at least DVD/blu-ray stuff should be soon...) some people will pay extra for the "3DTV" (or whatever) printed on the box.
Here's the thing... if you start out assuming that life might be radically different, you finish with "and that's why it's impossible to detect life with modern telescopes." On the other hand if you assume at least some life is like our own, you can find an earth sized planet in the habitable zone and then see water and organic molecules and conclude that there's probably life. In the mean time our telescopes will improve, and maybe eventually we'll be capable of taking a broader look with some hope of results.
Google starts many of their services as invite-only. Consider it a beta test where the testers have to pay for the privilege, and are strictly limited in number. As opposed to all the other recent smartphones where the beta testers had to pay for the privilege but weren't limited in number.
Hooray, what I must assume is deliberate ignorance.
Look, educate yourself on the difference between the MAGNETIC north pole (the one defined by the magnetic field, probably caused by movement in the molten core of the earth, who's only serious influence on the earth is the direction compasses (including the ones inside a bird's head) point) and the GEOGRAPHIC north pole (the one defined by the rotation of the earth as a whole, which defines the coldest parts of the world).
The MAGNETIC north pole drifts constantly and flips occasionally (though not what one might call "regularly"). This is not accompanied by any cataclysmic extinction event, and takes place over dozens or even hundreds of years. It did not happen during the Mayan or Egyptian cultures, and unless you think they were sending probes to the mid-Atlantic ridge they were unlikely to even be aware of it much what able to predict it better then modern science (which says the field will probably begin flipping sometime in the next 10 to 200,000 years). The magnetic north pole has no influence over how cold it is in any given place on earth.
The GEOGRAPHIC north pole doesn't drift appreciably, or flip - ever. If it did flip, the most obvious sign would be that the sun would rise in what we currently think of as the west, and set in what is now the east. Also, all the stuff that got flung into space as the earth stopped spinning suddenly and then started up again in the opposite direction. Or if it happened more gradually, summers and winters would gradually get more extreme until the entire world spent half of every year (as opposed to half of every day) in the sun, and the other half in the shade, at which time the trend would reverse until it came to a rest exactly as it is now but with the sun rising in what was the west and setting in what was the east. Both methods would take similarly ludicrous amounts of energy, and probably kill most large animals and plants.
Don't be ignorant. We know for a fact that geomagnetic reversals (including a period of dozens to hundreds of years without a significant magnetic field) happen several times every million years. They are not accompanied by mass extinctions. Therefore, we would not fry. Maybe the incidence of skin cancer would increase by an order of magnitude, and perhaps the amount of atmosphere lost to the solar wind would be above average for a while, but that's about the worst of it.
Satellites are of course another story, but our magnetic field is not the only thing between the inhabitants of the earth and instant baking in the solar wind.
While this is true, one must at this point watch the "argument clinic" sketch. There's a difference - especially in a scientific setting - between constructive questioning of the conventional wisdom and just saying "no it isn't" over and over again.
You've forgotten there are two parts to the process. The first part is the opposite of making zombies, yes. But the second part... reverses the first part. Therefore, zombies.
"LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs" so.. "x = 2.5*x" therefore x=0
"LEDs last... 5 times longer than incandescents" so "x = 26*y" and "x=0" (from above) therefore y=0.
So... now that we've discovered that LED's and incandescents both don't actually emit any light, we'll all switch to CFL's, right?
To fail to be completely redundant, I hate the use of "2.5 times as long" followed immediately by "25 times longer". The two phrases mean different things. "2.5 times as long" is 2.5x, "25 times longer" is 26x.
So... we start by replacing the veal (where exercise must be specifically avoided anyway) and part of the sausage and all the other meats that are crappy already. Some probably get *higher* quality for the same price with artificial meat. And eventually we learn to toughen the artificial meat until you can't tell the difference. I eat plenty of meat but if given the choice between factory-farm meat and totally-artificial meat at similar quality and price, I'd go fake all the way.
Also, I didn't even realize your entire post was a pizza analogy until I saw your name while replying. Much better then some of the more "strained" analogies I've seen recently.
Wrong. "Catholic leaders say that alien life can be aligned with the Bible's teachings". They don't plan to change *their* story, they plan to change the facts to fit their story, as is their wont.
I'm all for testing the conventional wisdom, and when combined with my tendency to avoid medicine where it isn't necessary it appears that I should support this kind of article. But when it comes to vaccines there's a problem - antivaxxers. Regardless of the chance that one particular vaccine might not really be worth taking, it's frankly irresponsible to put out this kind of article without firm proof. Show me where the clinical trials for the vaccines went wrong and how everyone else who looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccine missed it. Otherwise... and I really hate to say this... shut up. There are people out there who will use this as ammunition in their irrational campaign against vaccines in general, and those people will get other people killed. Not just people who choose not to get themselves vaccinated for the flu, but their children, and the children of other people who for are unable to get the vaccine due to an allergy, or for whom the vaccine had no effect. Those people would normally be protected by group immunization that kept them from ever being in contact with the virus in question, but when there's a real movement in our country to avoid vaccines... well we start to slip below the threshold in some places.
We killed smallpox outright, but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another. That's the reason I have to be against this sort of article - even the chance that it might be correct isn't worth the near-certainty that it will be another blow for vaccination in general. If they had any sort of actual firm proof, it would be different, but this sort of conjecture *is* dangerous - and not to the person doing the conjecturing.
Hubble would have failed miserably without constant manned spaceflight. Or did you forget that we had to go fix its mirror right away, and do dozens of maintenance flights since? Robots are nice, but a scientist on the ground for five minutes may well have gotten more done then everything the mars rovers have done since they arrived (well, spotting the evidence of moving water might not have happened since it required time, but that was just pure luck anyway). It would cost more, yes... but it really does get more done, and also inspires the public more then just pictures. Which means more money to do science with.
You're free to talk, but you aren't guaranteed the respect and cooperation of an audience. Especially if they're in a required lecture rather then something extracurricular.
I have no idea how you find this scary. Do you think they're going to skip extensive clinical testing that includes people with bee allergies, if they're using the part of the toxin that people can be allergic to? Do you think they're going to stick it into the water without your knowledge or consent when it proves fatal to people with bee allergies?
Or is it just because they're using something potentially dangerous as medicine? Because if so, let me remind you that the current preferred treatment methods include blasting the tumor with fatal doses of radiation...
"Drop everything and answer us now." - As others have pointed out, this is not a great attitude if you're concerned that you're being treated as an annoyance. Your average open-source coder enjoys coding, and probably doesn't really enjoy talking to you, especially if you're taking this attitude.
"If the journalist doesn't give you a deadline ('I need to know by 2pm'), it's okay to ask how long you can take to reach the right developer in Poland, but err on the side of 'emergency response.' It's unreasonable, I know, but so are our deadlines." - Don't do this. Err on the side of the truth, as any real journalist ought to be asking you to. Getting an accurate story is more important then getting a prompt story - the total story output will in the end average the same amount but higher quality. This "err on the side of speed over truth" attitude is exactly what's wrong with the media today, and any thinking person should do everything in their power to discourage it. If you're going to miss your deadline because it takes too long to get the truth, then the deadline is wrong.
Of course if you're really desperate for the media attention you may have to do undesirable things to get it, but think carefully before you do.
I would argue that the industrial revolution bumped revolutions from "slow" to "average" and the internet bumped it from "average" to "fast". It's hard to imagine what could increase the pace again... but then nobody imagined the internet before it happened either. And probably nobody imagined the industrial revolution either. Of course, this time around we'll have people who are modeling and predicting the behaviors of populations so a prediction seems more likely, but still...
Note: "slow", "average", and "fast" from the point of view of someone who grew up without the internet.
You, like most people, seem to be under the opinion that there is only one viewpoint that is "slashdot" and that it is therefor hypocritical when two opposing views are expressed. In reality, of course, there are thousands of regular users all of whom have slightly varied views. And of course you'll hear from the outraged ones but not so much from the ones who don't care about a particular subject, leading you to believe that 'slashdot' as a whole is outraged about contradictory things.
But yes, the fact that anyone can make an edit makes wikipedia an unreliable source. That isn't to say it's bad - on average wikipedia is a very good source of information - but it is a valid criticism of something that's trying to be an encyclopedia.
And then we have this - people are of course pointing out that you can't claim to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and then screen edits. You know what? Anyone can send in a correction to a print encyclopedia as well, and they have people who will look at the proposed changes and make corrections if they're needed. But that's not what is meant by "anyone can edit".
So... yes, wikipedia has in its very subtitle a contradiction. You can't both be a quality encyclopedia and accept any edit. And pointing out that they've managed to be neither isn't wrong. Hell, maybe a revision-controlled wikipedia would be better then what we have now.
Imagine, for a moment, what the effect would be of putting a mandatory 24-hour delay on all edits would be. If an edit is reverted during its 24 hour waiting period, it never changes in the first place. There goes half the vandalism. Maybe a different rule for articles that are about current events... or better yet don't bother with articles on current events until they're done - maybe a redirect to the related news site. This would accomplish the goal of the changes in the article, but without alienating people who aren't major wikipedians. *Everyone* gets a 24 hour delay.
Here's your problem: you talk like letting people sell drugs is a bad thing. This isn't true - it's the crime related to selling drugs illegally that's a bad thing. Completely legalize drugs and you'll have as much crime associated with them as you have associated with cigarettes. You'll be as afraid of drug dealers as you are of your local convenience store clerk. Hell, there won't *be* streetcorner drug dealers, it will be your convenience store clerk doing the selling!
Look at America - during prohibition organized crime in the form of the Mafia became rampant. It was a bad time. The solution? Legalize alcohol. This, of course, didn't make the Mafia go away, but stealing their most lucrative trade and giving it to the business world was the first step. Things are worse in Mexico, of course, but the first step remains the same.
It's news for nerds because apparently nerds are the only ones who see the sheer stupidity of existing drug laws.
Yes, using marijuana and alcohol is stupid. But the prevailing political climate on slashdot is libertarianism, making this a personal choice. Of course on this particular issue the arguments go further, to the point where I can't understand why anyone who has actually examined the issue could possibly support continued prohibition. Well OK, I can imagine a sufficiently cynical politician continuing prohibition because most of their constituents support it (despite their personal knowledge that this will increase violent crime and deficit in their district). And I can imagine some hardcore conservatives who will never allow a person to do something "sinful" in their own home if they can possibly help it.
But seriously, prohibition doesn't work. Influenced by religious fundamentalists we tried it once - with alcohol - and ended up with more people drinking and we brought the mafia to America. Who the hell can't figure out that doing it with marijuana and other drugs is just as stupid as prohibition against alcohol?
I design a machine that gives candy to babies. And then some nefarious person - unknown to me - replaces all the baby candy with live hand grenades. I run the program and blow up a bunch of babies. Was my act then evil? I did, after all, blow up a bunch of babies. Of course, I didn't *intend* to do that, I *intended* to give them candy.
Or for a non-random system where I know all the facts, if through some contrived means the only way to save a bus-full of orphans involves stabbing an old lady, am I evil for doing so?
Slashdot Mirror
Red-blue or shutters plus double frame rate aren't the only options. There's also differential polarization and double the resolution. All we have to do is turn half the LED's 90 degrees and enable the proper video format and polarized glasses will do the job of red-blue ones - except you lose the "polarization" channel and half the resolution instead of the "color" channel. And lets face it, you wouldn't notice if you lose your already tiny ability to discern polarization.
Easy, the TV. Why? Because it's easy to implement with LED's, and we already have LED TV's. Even if no 3D programs are available (and with movies coming out in 3D at least DVD/blu-ray stuff should be soon...) some people will pay extra for the "3DTV" (or whatever) printed on the box.
Here's the thing... if you start out assuming that life might be radically different, you finish with "and that's why it's impossible to detect life with modern telescopes." On the other hand if you assume at least some life is like our own, you can find an earth sized planet in the habitable zone and then see water and organic molecules and conclude that there's probably life. In the mean time our telescopes will improve, and maybe eventually we'll be capable of taking a broader look with some hope of results.
Google starts many of their services as invite-only. Consider it a beta test where the testers have to pay for the privilege, and are strictly limited in number. As opposed to all the other recent smartphones where the beta testers had to pay for the privilege but weren't limited in number.
Hooray, what I must assume is deliberate ignorance.
Look, educate yourself on the difference between the MAGNETIC north pole (the one defined by the magnetic field, probably caused by movement in the molten core of the earth, who's only serious influence on the earth is the direction compasses (including the ones inside a bird's head) point) and the GEOGRAPHIC north pole (the one defined by the rotation of the earth as a whole, which defines the coldest parts of the world).
The MAGNETIC north pole drifts constantly and flips occasionally (though not what one might call "regularly"). This is not accompanied by any cataclysmic extinction event, and takes place over dozens or even hundreds of years. It did not happen during the Mayan or Egyptian cultures, and unless you think they were sending probes to the mid-Atlantic ridge they were unlikely to even be aware of it much what able to predict it better then modern science (which says the field will probably begin flipping sometime in the next 10 to 200,000 years). The magnetic north pole has no influence over how cold it is in any given place on earth.
The GEOGRAPHIC north pole doesn't drift appreciably, or flip - ever. If it did flip, the most obvious sign would be that the sun would rise in what we currently think of as the west, and set in what is now the east. Also, all the stuff that got flung into space as the earth stopped spinning suddenly and then started up again in the opposite direction. Or if it happened more gradually, summers and winters would gradually get more extreme until the entire world spent half of every year (as opposed to half of every day) in the sun, and the other half in the shade, at which time the trend would reverse until it came to a rest exactly as it is now but with the sun rising in what was the west and setting in what was the east. Both methods would take similarly ludicrous amounts of energy, and probably kill most large animals and plants.
Don't be ignorant. We know for a fact that geomagnetic reversals (including a period of dozens to hundreds of years without a significant magnetic field) happen several times every million years. They are not accompanied by mass extinctions. Therefore, we would not fry. Maybe the incidence of skin cancer would increase by an order of magnitude, and perhaps the amount of atmosphere lost to the solar wind would be above average for a while, but that's about the worst of it.
Satellites are of course another story, but our magnetic field is not the only thing between the inhabitants of the earth and instant baking in the solar wind.
While this is true, one must at this point watch the "argument clinic" sketch. There's a difference - especially in a scientific setting - between constructive questioning of the conventional wisdom and just saying "no it isn't" over and over again.
You've forgotten there are two parts to the process. The first part is the opposite of making zombies, yes. But the second part... reverses the first part. Therefore, zombies.
"LEDs last 2.5 times as long as LEDs" so.. "x = 2.5*x" therefore x=0
... 5 times longer than incandescents" so "x = 26*y" and "x=0" (from above) therefore y=0.
"LEDs last
So... now that we've discovered that LED's and incandescents both don't actually emit any light, we'll all switch to CFL's, right?
To fail to be completely redundant, I hate the use of "2.5 times as long" followed immediately by "25 times longer". The two phrases mean different things. "2.5 times as long" is 2.5x, "25 times longer" is 26x.
Wrong question. That question isn't clever. It isn't profound. It certainly isn't 'insightful'. It's arrogant pedantry. http://xkcd.com/169/
The correct question is:
If it was made from grown human cells, would it be wrong in the way that cannibalism - as we understand it today - is wrong?
And the answer would be an unequivocal "no".
So... we start by replacing the veal (where exercise must be specifically avoided anyway) and part of the sausage and all the other meats that are crappy already. Some probably get *higher* quality for the same price with artificial meat. And eventually we learn to toughen the artificial meat until you can't tell the difference. I eat plenty of meat but if given the choice between factory-farm meat and totally-artificial meat at similar quality and price, I'd go fake all the way.
Also, I didn't even realize your entire post was a pizza analogy until I saw your name while replying. Much better then some of the more "strained" analogies I've seen recently.
I find it perhaps telling that you consider modern sci-fi to only include television and other video mediums.
Wrong. "Catholic leaders say that alien life can be aligned with the Bible's teachings". They don't plan to change *their* story, they plan to change the facts to fit their story, as is their wont.
I'm all for testing the conventional wisdom, and when combined with my tendency to avoid medicine where it isn't necessary it appears that I should support this kind of article. But when it comes to vaccines there's a problem - antivaxxers. Regardless of the chance that one particular vaccine might not really be worth taking, it's frankly irresponsible to put out this kind of article without firm proof. Show me where the clinical trials for the vaccines went wrong and how everyone else who looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccine missed it. Otherwise... and I really hate to say this... shut up. There are people out there who will use this as ammunition in their irrational campaign against vaccines in general, and those people will get other people killed. Not just people who choose not to get themselves vaccinated for the flu, but their children, and the children of other people who for are unable to get the vaccine due to an allergy, or for whom the vaccine had no effect. Those people would normally be protected by group immunization that kept them from ever being in contact with the virus in question, but when there's a real movement in our country to avoid vaccines... well we start to slip below the threshold in some places.
We killed smallpox outright, but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another. That's the reason I have to be against this sort of article - even the chance that it might be correct isn't worth the near-certainty that it will be another blow for vaccination in general. If they had any sort of actual firm proof, it would be different, but this sort of conjecture *is* dangerous - and not to the person doing the conjecturing.
Hubble would have failed miserably without constant manned spaceflight. Or did you forget that we had to go fix its mirror right away, and do dozens of maintenance flights since? Robots are nice, but a scientist on the ground for five minutes may well have gotten more done then everything the mars rovers have done since they arrived (well, spotting the evidence of moving water might not have happened since it required time, but that was just pure luck anyway). It would cost more, yes... but it really does get more done, and also inspires the public more then just pictures. Which means more money to do science with.
You're free to talk, but you aren't guaranteed the respect and cooperation of an audience. Especially if they're in a required lecture rather then something extracurricular.
I'd normally agree with you, but this actually does involve nano-scale (0-100 nm) structures instead of the typical "probably microscopic".
I have no idea how you find this scary. Do you think they're going to skip extensive clinical testing that includes people with bee allergies, if they're using the part of the toxin that people can be allergic to? Do you think they're going to stick it into the water without your knowledge or consent when it proves fatal to people with bee allergies?
Or is it just because they're using something potentially dangerous as medicine? Because if so, let me remind you that the current preferred treatment methods include blasting the tumor with fatal doses of radiation...
"Drop everything and answer us now." - As others have pointed out, this is not a great attitude if you're concerned that you're being treated as an annoyance. Your average open-source coder enjoys coding, and probably doesn't really enjoy talking to you, especially if you're taking this attitude.
"If the journalist doesn't give you a deadline ('I need to know by 2pm'), it's okay to ask how long you can take to reach the right developer in Poland, but err on the side of 'emergency response.' It's unreasonable, I know, but so are our deadlines." - Don't do this. Err on the side of the truth, as any real journalist ought to be asking you to. Getting an accurate story is more important then getting a prompt story - the total story output will in the end average the same amount but higher quality. This "err on the side of speed over truth" attitude is exactly what's wrong with the media today, and any thinking person should do everything in their power to discourage it. If you're going to miss your deadline because it takes too long to get the truth, then the deadline is wrong.
Of course if you're really desperate for the media attention you may have to do undesirable things to get it, but think carefully before you do.
I would argue that the industrial revolution bumped revolutions from "slow" to "average" and the internet bumped it from "average" to "fast". It's hard to imagine what could increase the pace again... but then nobody imagined the internet before it happened either. And probably nobody imagined the industrial revolution either. Of course, this time around we'll have people who are modeling and predicting the behaviors of populations so a prediction seems more likely, but still...
Note: "slow", "average", and "fast" from the point of view of someone who grew up without the internet.
You, like most people, seem to be under the opinion that there is only one viewpoint that is "slashdot" and that it is therefor hypocritical when two opposing views are expressed. In reality, of course, there are thousands of regular users all of whom have slightly varied views. And of course you'll hear from the outraged ones but not so much from the ones who don't care about a particular subject, leading you to believe that 'slashdot' as a whole is outraged about contradictory things.
But yes, the fact that anyone can make an edit makes wikipedia an unreliable source. That isn't to say it's bad - on average wikipedia is a very good source of information - but it is a valid criticism of something that's trying to be an encyclopedia.
And then we have this - people are of course pointing out that you can't claim to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and then screen edits. You know what? Anyone can send in a correction to a print encyclopedia as well, and they have people who will look at the proposed changes and make corrections if they're needed. But that's not what is meant by "anyone can edit".
So... yes, wikipedia has in its very subtitle a contradiction. You can't both be a quality encyclopedia and accept any edit. And pointing out that they've managed to be neither isn't wrong. Hell, maybe a revision-controlled wikipedia would be better then what we have now.
Imagine, for a moment, what the effect would be of putting a mandatory 24-hour delay on all edits would be. If an edit is reverted during its 24 hour waiting period, it never changes in the first place. There goes half the vandalism. Maybe a different rule for articles that are about current events... or better yet don't bother with articles on current events until they're done - maybe a redirect to the related news site. This would accomplish the goal of the changes in the article, but without alienating people who aren't major wikipedians. *Everyone* gets a 24 hour delay.
"WHy does anyone have the right to install whatever they want on the device?"
Because they own it.
Here's your problem: you talk like letting people sell drugs is a bad thing. This isn't true - it's the crime related to selling drugs illegally that's a bad thing. Completely legalize drugs and you'll have as much crime associated with them as you have associated with cigarettes. You'll be as afraid of drug dealers as you are of your local convenience store clerk. Hell, there won't *be* streetcorner drug dealers, it will be your convenience store clerk doing the selling!
Look at America - during prohibition organized crime in the form of the Mafia became rampant. It was a bad time. The solution? Legalize alcohol. This, of course, didn't make the Mafia go away, but stealing their most lucrative trade and giving it to the business world was the first step. Things are worse in Mexico, of course, but the first step remains the same.
It's news for nerds because apparently nerds are the only ones who see the sheer stupidity of existing drug laws.
Yes, using marijuana and alcohol is stupid. But the prevailing political climate on slashdot is libertarianism, making this a personal choice. Of course on this particular issue the arguments go further, to the point where I can't understand why anyone who has actually examined the issue could possibly support continued prohibition. Well OK, I can imagine a sufficiently cynical politician continuing prohibition because most of their constituents support it (despite their personal knowledge that this will increase violent crime and deficit in their district). And I can imagine some hardcore conservatives who will never allow a person to do something "sinful" in their own home if they can possibly help it.
But seriously, prohibition doesn't work. Influenced by religious fundamentalists we tried it once - with alcohol - and ended up with more people drinking and we brought the mafia to America. Who the hell can't figure out that doing it with marijuana and other drugs is just as stupid as prohibition against alcohol?
Stupidest view I've ever seen.
I design a machine that gives candy to babies. And then some nefarious person - unknown to me - replaces all the baby candy with live hand grenades. I run the program and blow up a bunch of babies. Was my act then evil? I did, after all, blow up a bunch of babies. Of course, I didn't *intend* to do that, I *intended* to give them candy.
Or for a non-random system where I know all the facts, if through some contrived means the only way to save a bus-full of orphans involves stabbing an old lady, am I evil for doing so?