Maybe I can explain it, since I work with BECs. Whether atoms repel or are attracted to one another depends on the magnetic field they are in. A Feshbach resonance is a kind of magnetic field resonance at which the strength of attraction or repulsion is enhanced. If you set the magnetic field to a value where the attraction is strong, you can get a Bosenova (and yes, the name DID stick). You can have resonances at many magnetic field values, not just high ones. Most alkali atoms have a dozen or more resonances in the range of hundreds of gauss, so a really high magnetic field isn't anything special. The way Feshbach resonances work is by tuning hyperfine splitting. Helium-4 has no hyperfine structure and the atoms repel one another, therefore you can't force them to be attractive by tuning the magnetic field.
I don't know how this FUD even came up. It's such a ridiculous idea to begin with.
In New Zealand, it's also national nude day and women's suffrage day! However, there weren't any naked women with pirate hats on, so that was a bit disappointing.
We had a creationism troll in my high school biology class. She was quiet until we got to the human evolution bit, and then she'd say things like "What a pile of nonsense, we didn't come from monkeys!" The teacher told her that she was entitled to her opinions, but can she please shut up and not disrupt the class. My town was fairly Christian, but there weren't complaints from anyone else in the class.
Regulation is the only way to do it. I would prefer a blanket ban or severe restriction of greenhouse gas emissions, but this is considered unreasonable to most industry and governments. Cap and trade is the next best thing.
Two years is still a little short, I think. One possible reason for the lack of warming at present could be the increase in particles in the air put out by China in the last 10 years. This kind of cooling happened with the Western industrial revolution, but when a lot of the dust settled, the temperatures began climbing. Having the Olympics in China is very good for climate scientists. Because they halted a lot of production to clear up the air a bit, scientists can finally get a good idea of how much soot in the air influences things.
There might indeed be a wolf there this time, but the danger in believing him and being wrong is greater than the alternative.
I think you are very wrong here. At present, the cost of lowering emissions on average is between 0.1% and 2% in the current emissions trading schemes going around. If we do nothing now and have to cap emissions in 20 years time instead, that percentage rises to between 5% and 20% (there are disagreements over what the actual percentage is, but it will definitely be more expensive to fix later than now), which is a considerable amount. Not only that, but if we do nothing and it keeps getting warmer, but people who are already not well off (3rd world countries, etc) will suffer more because of poor agricultural conditions.
How many people have insurance? Isn't this pretty much the same thing? Pay a little now to save a lot later in case something really does go horribly wrong.
I don't think CO2 production is bad. I know it is. But for the right reasons. It causes acidic water. But that's where it ends. It does not warm. It probably does not cool.
Acidified oceans are no laughing matter! Why do you think CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
So, how will a quota in hiring in any profession (whether it's typically more often pursued by men or women) change how parents treat their children? Surely your father wouldn't have ever said, "Well, now that standards have been lowered so that the people with what it takes to have that job who also have an interest in that job, we need to take a closer look at your report card, missy!"
That's not what I was saying at all. I'm saying that introducing quotas will do nothing because the fundamental causes are not addressed. The gender bias is not primarily caused by discrimination in this case, so a quota is no good. Also I doubt it will help even in the slightest in physics, because most people who don't study physics are actively avoiding it - they aren't bummed because they didn't get into ____ university with a great physics department, they are glad that they never have to see physics again!
Is it worth knowing that less talented physicists will be getting jobs for years and years in the hopes that more women will - knowing that it's lower standards that are paving the way for them - perhaps develop the same interest you have cultivated? Are you actually worried, right now, that your own merits as a physicist would take a back seat to simple gender bias when someone is looking for a physicist to hire? Honestly, just curious.
I would personally be offended if I was either hired or not hired on the basis of my gender. I would rather be judged on my abilities.
It's not just genetics. The reasons for having less women in physical sciences and engineering are more complex than that, and there are quite a few studies trying to find the causes. One thing they have found so far is that fathers make a big difference. If fathers encourage their daughters to have a more traditional "female" roles (eg. homemakers or traditionally female careers such as nursing), then they are far less likely to do science, particularly physical science.
I am a female doing a PhD in physics. I was always encouraged to do well in science and math by my parents, and my mom is a biologist. I developed an interest in physics on my own without a lot of encouragement from my parents (my mom actually actively tried to get me to do biology instead because she thought I wasn't nerdy enough for physics). When I got report cards at school, all they really cared about was math and science grades - humanities and English weren't so important because they weren't necessary for "real jobs".
A DNA database of everyone would certainly be useful for solving crimes. I think the main question is whether treating certain people as a potential criminal is ethical. What is definitely wrong is treating certain members of the public differently when they have done nothing wrong.
I find it offensive that they want teachers to identify "potential criminals" in young kids. If you have a problem child, rather than the police knowing about him/her, isn't it better to provide special care for them? I can see a big stigma against ADHD kids coming from this...
Nanobots that live in your body and fix stuff, and do things like destroy tumours. Something that can complement the immune system and the body's ability to heal itself.
Makers - like in Transmetropolitan. You feed it junk, and it reconstructs molecules to give you anything you want, eg. a cup of coffee.
While there may be some practical reasons to send people to Mars, I think the reason it is worthwhile is the same as why doing basic research is worthwhile. We haven't done it before, the technology to do it is within our grasp, and we definitely stand to learn something. Plus, it's exciting! It's a new frontier. Our civilization can grow and expand in ways we never imagined. Make life a little more interesting!
I haven't had a lot of experience with Vista, but I've been playing games in Linux for a while now because of seemingly poor support for my graphics card (GeForce Go 7300) in Windows XP. I can't play a game more than 20 minutes before it crashes badly (blue screen and all). On the same machine in Linux, I can play UT2004, Doom 3, and Quake natively. Civ 4 runs beautifully under wine with no performance hit that I've noticed. World in Conflict plays in wine too, and although there is definitely a performance hit there, it beats restarting my computer constantly. Most older games will run fine in wine, such as Diablo 2. And when a game crashes in Linux, I just get sent back to the desktop instantly with no fuss.
My only experience with Vista was to install Worms World Party. While it would install, the game just refused to run. I tried running it in XP mode and various other configurations, but no luck. I think it's safe to say that gaming on Vista is hit and miss with anything not explicitly designed to run on it. Just like gaming in Linux...
This is very strange to me. I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but in New Zealand, student unions publish student newspapers. People are always complaining about various university decisions that bother them (usually fee rises) in letters to the editor, and no one would dream of getting expelled for it. I thought that was free speech...
Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why.
Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see http://www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn't science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world.
For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian's evidence given at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich paths from fish to land-based tetrapod, from crocodile to dinosaur to feathered dinosaur to bird, from terrestrial quadruped to the whale, and more besides.
Creationism is strong in the United States and, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, worryingly on the rise in Europe (see http://tinyurl.com/2knrqy). But die-hard creationists aren't a sensible target for raising awareness. What matters are those citizens who aren't sure about evolution -- as much as 55% of the US population according to some surveys.
As the National Academy of Sciences and Padian have shown, it is possible to summarize the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun, even though there are plenty of refinements to be explored. Yet some actual and potential heads of state refuse to recognize this fact as such. And creationists have a tendency to play on the uncertainties displayed by some citizens. Evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Accordingly, anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact to their students, their friends and relatives should be given the ammunition to do so. Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth on 12 February 2009, every science academy and society with a stake in the credibility of evolution should summarize evidence for it on their website and take every opportunity to promote it.
That sounds like a good idea to me. I've been thinking for a while about a workable parliament composed of randomly selected people. I really despise the concept of career politicians and I would love to see their power diminished. What I really want is a system that eliminates them entirely, but I haven't thought of a practical way to do it yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know how this FUD even came up. It's such a ridiculous idea to begin with.
In New Zealand, it's also national nude day and women's suffrage day! However, there weren't any naked women with pirate hats on, so that was a bit disappointing.
We had a creationism troll in my high school biology class. She was quiet until we got to the human evolution bit, and then she'd say things like "What a pile of nonsense, we didn't come from monkeys!" The teacher told her that she was entitled to her opinions, but can she please shut up and not disrupt the class. My town was fairly Christian, but there weren't complaints from anyone else in the class.
Zircons are forever!
Regulation is the only way to do it. I would prefer a blanket ban or severe restriction of greenhouse gas emissions, but this is considered unreasonable to most industry and governments. Cap and trade is the next best thing.
Two years is still a little short, I think. One possible reason for the lack of warming at present could be the increase in particles in the air put out by China in the last 10 years. This kind of cooling happened with the Western industrial revolution, but when a lot of the dust settled, the temperatures began climbing. Having the Olympics in China is very good for climate scientists. Because they halted a lot of production to clear up the air a bit, scientists can finally get a good idea of how much soot in the air influences things.
I think you are very wrong here. At present, the cost of lowering emissions on average is between 0.1% and 2% in the current emissions trading schemes going around. If we do nothing now and have to cap emissions in 20 years time instead, that percentage rises to between 5% and 20% (there are disagreements over what the actual percentage is, but it will definitely be more expensive to fix later than now), which is a considerable amount. Not only that, but if we do nothing and it keeps getting warmer, but people who are already not well off (3rd world countries, etc) will suffer more because of poor agricultural conditions.
How many people have insurance? Isn't this pretty much the same thing? Pay a little now to save a lot later in case something really does go horribly wrong.
Acidified oceans are no laughing matter! Why do you think CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
That's not what I was saying at all. I'm saying that introducing quotas will do nothing because the fundamental causes are not addressed. The gender bias is not primarily caused by discrimination in this case, so a quota is no good. Also I doubt it will help even in the slightest in physics, because most people who don't study physics are actively avoiding it - they aren't bummed because they didn't get into ____ university with a great physics department, they are glad that they never have to see physics again!
I would personally be offended if I was either hired or not hired on the basis of my gender. I would rather be judged on my abilities.
I am a female doing a PhD in physics. I was always encouraged to do well in science and math by my parents, and my mom is a biologist. I developed an interest in physics on my own without a lot of encouragement from my parents (my mom actually actively tried to get me to do biology instead because she thought I wasn't nerdy enough for physics). When I got report cards at school, all they really cared about was math and science grades - humanities and English weren't so important because they weren't necessary for "real jobs".
The cloning process is kind of lossy. A lot of mutations can occur in the process, and as a result the cloned animal is likely to be unhealthy.
Clearly it's a practical joke played on us by some aliens.
New Zealand is not part of Australia.
I find it offensive that they want teachers to identify "potential criminals" in young kids. If you have a problem child, rather than the police knowing about him/her, isn't it better to provide special care for them? I can see a big stigma against ADHD kids coming from this...
Makers - like in Transmetropolitan. You feed it junk, and it reconstructs molecules to give you anything you want, eg. a cup of coffee.
While there may be some practical reasons to send people to Mars, I think the reason it is worthwhile is the same as why doing basic research is worthwhile. We haven't done it before, the technology to do it is within our grasp, and we definitely stand to learn something. Plus, it's exciting! It's a new frontier. Our civilization can grow and expand in ways we never imagined. Make life a little more interesting!
Don't worry. There will be plenty of jobs for humans once the robots start going crazy.
What about editing metadata?
My only experience with Vista was to install Worms World Party. While it would install, the game just refused to run. I tried running it in XP mode and various other configurations, but no luck. I think it's safe to say that gaming on Vista is hit and miss with anything not explicitly designed to run on it. Just like gaming in Linux...
Wouldn't that be like having a child with your twin, rather than something like cloning?
If you actually RTFA, they are not attempting to create new species or anything like that. They want to extract stem cells. That is all right now.
This is very strange to me. I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but in New Zealand, student unions publish student newspapers. People are always complaining about various university decisions that bother them (usually fee rises) in letters to the editor, and no one would dream of getting expelled for it. I thought that was free speech...
Shit, does that mean I'm in the negatives??
SPREAD THE WORD
Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why.
Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see http://www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn't science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world.
For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian's evidence given at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich paths from fish to land-based tetrapod, from crocodile to dinosaur to feathered dinosaur to bird, from terrestrial quadruped to the whale, and more besides. Creationism is strong in the United States and, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, worryingly on the rise in Europe (see http://tinyurl.com/2knrqy). But die-hard creationists aren't a sensible target for raising awareness. What matters are those citizens who aren't sure about evolution -- as much as 55% of the US population according to some surveys.
As the National Academy of Sciences and Padian have shown, it is possible to summarize the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun, even though there are plenty of refinements to be explored. Yet some actual and potential heads of state refuse to recognize this fact as such. And creationists have a tendency to play on the uncertainties displayed by some citizens. Evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Accordingly, anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact to their students, their friends and relatives should be given the ammunition to do so. Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth on 12 February 2009, every science academy and society with a stake in the credibility of evolution should summarize evidence for it on their website and take every opportunity to promote it.
That sounds like a good idea to me. I've been thinking for a while about a workable parliament composed of randomly selected people. I really despise the concept of career politicians and I would love to see their power diminished. What I really want is a system that eliminates them entirely, but I haven't thought of a practical way to do it yet.