"I see you are talking to someone who is trying to be friendly. What would you like to do now? * gently brush the person off? * actively engage the person * seduce the person?"
Flight at the level these things will be operating is see-and-avoid to prevent collisions. When you often see closing speeds well in excess of 300 miles an hour between airplanes, it doesn't give someone much time to react, especially if that someone is busy concentrating on the camera that points down at a "suspect" rather than off at the horizon where other planes will be.
PLUS, they'll probably start popping up temporary flight restrictions to try and prevent this sort of collision happening, but it's hard to run a TFR on a moving target, and harder yet to avoid violating it.
Or they're parted out and the applicable parts are farmed out all over the world. The reason you can buy a low-time used engine for a Japanese car for quite considerably less than you can get a rebuild in the US is because of the amazing market in used engines from Japan. Also transmissions. Often $2000 for an engine and transmission replacement that's what we would consider nearly new (50,000 km.)
that requires ID cards for anything and everything.
Now where did I put my passport and social security card so I can cash a check to get change for a locker so I can store all the stuff I'm not allowed to take when I go flying?
Dude. Costco prices are like twenty cents higher per item, locally, than WalMart, and locally the *starting* salary at Costco is $17.50. This in a locale where you can get a reasonably good one-bedroom apartment for $450/mo. I haven't been to a WalMart since 1997. I'd pay two dollars extra per item just on the knowledge that the people working there are making that kind of money for entry-level jobs. *I* can certainly afford it, and as a result the Costco employees can also afford to own nice cars and have decent health insurance and their kids are less likely to be the ones spraying graffiti on my fence and trying to break into my house. Personally, I think communities should evict WalMart just like they get rid of dog-fighting arenas, crack houses and brothels, since I don't really see much difference between them.
That sucks: I'm sorry to hear about that. I've read about incredibly abused children who are kept in dark closets for their first six years and they grow up basically blind because their brains don't correctly develop the areas that work with vision. To a lesser extent the same thing goes with language: the brain forms areas that deal with the fundamentals of hearing and speech. (That's why it's much harder to learn a language as an adult than as a young child.)
A lot of people in your situation seem to be entirely (functionally) blind in one eye: while it has no mechanical reasons for being blind they cannot see anything through it at all. At least you've partial redundancy.
Maybe it's just because of being raised in a rural western small town but when I see someone wearing a suit, who isn't actually engaged in running a large company, my thoughts are "what's he trying to sell me?" and "why does he have to dress up to do it?" Immediate suspicion.
but then again, I'm about as far from a CEO as you can get. They probably think exactly the opposite that I do, so the article's probably completely right.
I've known a few one-eyed pilots in my time and they do fine. Depth perception is a matter of many, many cues and parallax is only a small factor in it.
But yeah, the critical thing is getting optical correction at a young age. By age 5-9 (depending on who you consider an authority) there will be irremedial damage to vision, in fusion and tracking, from what I know.
I'm not an eye doctor but my girlfriend is. I'll try and sum up what I've learned. Farsightedness and nearsightedness are both problems with the lens or cornea's radius of curvature (not enough or too much); astigmatism is a problem with the lens or cornea having two different radii of curvature -- in other words, it's somewhere between hemispherical and cylindrical, so you have a major axis and a minor axis of curvature. Imagine an elliptic lens, basically. Amblyopia is, to the best of my knowledge, a problem with the muscles that control the eye or with the brain's ability to work with the details it's getting, so it has nothing to do with the lens and cornea, which determine near/far/astigmatism. If the brain cannot, for whatever reason, make images from the two eyes fuse into one, it'll start to ignore one eye and that eye will start tracking poorly. Likewise, if the muscles that control that eye are asymmetric, it will track poorly and the brain will begin to ignore it, so it'll wander more. There are three pairs of muscles that move each eye, sort of hexagonally spaced, and they can be of different strength. That can be corrected surgically or (as in article) optically, with differing rates of success, and for some people, specially cut glasses will provide excellent tracking but if the person is very tired or removes the glasses, the eyes will stop tracking together fairly quickly. Pardon me, ophthalmic doctors out there, if I'm grossly wrong.
There was a recent article in The New Yorker about the Bush Administration's relationship with science in the US. One person who was not a member of the Admin but did advise them on medical issues said, when asked about an HIV vaccine, that they would have to take a very hard look at it before recommending the FDA allow its release to the public, for exactly the reasons you say. So yeah: you're entirely correct.
I'm interested in how you define metabolism, coz I don't really know how I'd define it if I had to. During the lytic/lysogenic stages of virus reproduction, their genetic information is in a functioning cell, there's activity going on (at least in the lytic phase) that consumes nutrients and produces proteins and more genetic material. That's definitely part of how I'd define metabolism if I weren't specifically trying to exclude viruses. Yeah, viruses don't have a Krebs cycle, but there are bacteria that don't have a complete Krebs cycle, either.
See, the thing is, I don't think a virus is alive, but I don't have a deep reason for that, just an assertion based on an opinion. Unless I screw around with definitions and assign meanings specifically to push a point of view, it's hard for me to back up that opinion. Hence: what's metabolism?
Yet there are bacteria like the ones I was talking about, obligate intracellular ones, that don't really have a meaningful metabolism if they're outside of a host cell. Bacterial spores, likewise, don't have any metabolism in any real sense of the word: they're waiting for a life form on whose metabolism they can bootstrap their way back to life. So how's that different from a virus? I'm not saying viruses are alive. I'm just saying it's hard to define why they're not.
There are lots of parasites that cannot live without something else -- in fact, that might be a good definition for parasite. (It's not THE definition but it has a lot it.) They're pretty clearly alive. So is a virus?
I think we can agree that bacteria are alive. But there are types of bacteria, the ones that cause leprosy and chlamydia, frinstance, that cannot reproduce outside of a living cell. (They, unlike most bacteria, invade and live inside cells.) It's fairly difficult to draw a hard line between them and some viruses that have lipid bilayers full of receptors on their outsides. Even prions self-amplify, so where do you draw the lines on what's alive?
The FAA already says that for any distance under 500 miles, driving is faster because of the commute/airport boarding/airport deplaning slowness and that's with aircraft doing 550 mph. Mach 7 speeds up air travel like not washing your hands speeds up going to the bathroom.
can't find a picture of a swashplate engine but here's the old dyna-cam patent. It's not particularly clear what they're talking about but nobody seems to have online pictures. Scroll down this page about halfway and they have a cross-section drawn. If you do an image search on google under 'dyna-cam engine' you'll see what they were working on.
Want to make a very simple ring oscillator? Get three cheap nightlights -- the ones that turn on when it's dark -- and plug them all in on extension cords close to one another, so that each one's light is near another one's light detection cell. Congratulations: you've just made a three-unit ring oscillator. They operate at about 0.5Hz. It's also easy to make five and seven unit oscillators, of course.
For extra credit, making NOR gates using nightlights is fairly easy but making NAND gates takes quite a bit of fussing around. Flipflops are dead easy. If you can do all those you can build a half-adder circuit with carry bit, and you're well on your way to a very, very slow, large, hot optical computer.
The latter: you fire one jet down the throat of the second jet. You run the first one significantly lean so that you're only burning a small fraction of the available oxygen, the remainder of which is burnt in the second jet. You use high pressure and, presumably, combustion chamber geometry or possibly even resonant pulses to make sure that the thrust from the first jet is primarily backwards, then constrict the duct to increase the speed to the point where the compression conditions are right for the second jet. Once you get the whole thing off the ground and moving at a reasonable rate, you stop injecting at the back and just inject at the front. Presumably you'd have to reconfigure your exhaust chamber geometry. He was not keen on giving me lots of details, but really wanted to talk about the project.
By the way, piston engines only use a fraction of the oxygen from the air that passes through them, and turbofans used on commercial jetliners use maybe only 5% of the oxygen, if that. Pure turbojets use more of the available oxygen but not, as I recall, all of it.
While you're basically completely right, I do have an amiga emulator for my PC and mounted my old amiga HD (upgrade, of course) in a linux box to move all the text and graphics over. It was surprisingly easy, but as far as programs go, would be unsurprisingly pointless.
One of the first things they looked at was bodily fluids, with the early microscopes, but there are so many other wiggly, squiggly things to see, that are much larger and easier to see (sperm are *really* small cells compared to rotifers and bacteria with vibrating or rotary cilia/flagella) that by the time they got good enough to see the really small stuff they were probably initially wondering whether those were just more of what they'd already seen.
Probably fairly high. I recall him and a number of other early microscopists being convinced that they could see a little tiny human embryo in the head, much like the early telescopists were convinced they could see canals on Mars.
Slashdot Mirror
"I see you are talking to someone who is trying to be friendly. What would you like to do now?
* gently brush the person off?
* actively engage the person
* seduce the person?"
The most beautiful piece of scenery in Oklahoma is the sight of the state line in your rear-view mirror.
Flight at the level these things will be operating is see-and-avoid to prevent collisions. When you often see closing speeds well in excess of 300 miles an hour between airplanes, it doesn't give someone much time to react, especially if that someone is busy concentrating on the camera that points down at a "suspect" rather than off at the horizon where other planes will be.
PLUS, they'll probably start popping up temporary flight restrictions to try and prevent this sort of collision happening, but it's hard to run a TFR on a moving target, and harder yet to avoid violating it.
Or they're parted out and the applicable parts are farmed out all over the world. The reason you can buy a low-time used engine for a Japanese car for quite considerably less than you can get a rebuild in the US is because of the amazing market in used engines from Japan. Also transmissions. Often $2000 for an engine and transmission replacement that's what we would consider nearly new (50,000 km.)
that requires ID cards for anything and everything.
Now where did I put my passport and social security card so I can cash a check to get change for a locker so I can store all the stuff I'm not allowed to take when I go flying?
Dude. Costco prices are like twenty cents higher per item, locally, than WalMart, and locally the *starting* salary at Costco is $17.50. This in a locale where you can get a reasonably good one-bedroom apartment for $450/mo. I haven't been to a WalMart since 1997. I'd pay two dollars extra per item just on the knowledge that the people working there are making that kind of money for entry-level jobs. *I* can certainly afford it, and as a result the Costco employees can also afford to own nice cars and have decent health insurance and their kids are less likely to be the ones spraying graffiti on my fence and trying to break into my house. Personally, I think communities should evict WalMart just like they get rid of dog-fighting arenas, crack houses and brothels, since I don't really see much difference between them.
Whores? Hardly. You have to pay whores, which hasn't been my experience with pastors' kids.
That sucks: I'm sorry to hear about that. I've read about incredibly abused children who are kept in dark closets for their first six years and they grow up basically blind because their brains don't correctly develop the areas that work with vision. To a lesser extent the same thing goes with language: the brain forms areas that deal with the fundamentals of hearing and speech. (That's why it's much harder to learn a language as an adult than as a young child.)
A lot of people in your situation seem to be entirely (functionally) blind in one eye: while it has no mechanical reasons for being blind they cannot see anything through it at all. At least you've partial redundancy.
Maybe it's just because of being raised in a rural western small town but when I see someone wearing a suit, who isn't actually engaged in running a large company, my thoughts are "what's he trying to sell me?" and "why does he have to dress up to do it?" Immediate suspicion.
but then again, I'm about as far from a CEO as you can get. They probably think exactly the opposite that I do, so the article's probably completely right.
My mom met Einstein several times. She's in her 60's, so it's not hard to imagine someone on /. having had similar experiences.
I've known a few one-eyed pilots in my time and they do fine. Depth perception is a matter of many, many cues and parallax is only a small factor in it.
But yeah, the critical thing is getting optical correction at a young age. By age 5-9 (depending on who you consider an authority) there will be irremedial damage to vision, in fusion and tracking, from what I know.
I'm not an eye doctor but my girlfriend is. I'll try and sum up what I've learned. Farsightedness and nearsightedness are both problems with the lens or cornea's radius of curvature (not enough or too much); astigmatism is a problem with the lens or cornea having two different radii of curvature -- in other words, it's somewhere between hemispherical and cylindrical, so you have a major axis and a minor axis of curvature. Imagine an elliptic lens, basically. Amblyopia is, to the best of my knowledge, a problem with the muscles that control the eye or with the brain's ability to work with the details it's getting, so it has nothing to do with the lens and cornea, which determine near/far/astigmatism. If the brain cannot, for whatever reason, make images from the two eyes fuse into one, it'll start to ignore one eye and that eye will start tracking poorly. Likewise, if the muscles that control that eye are asymmetric, it will track poorly and the brain will begin to ignore it, so it'll wander more. There are three pairs of muscles that move each eye, sort of hexagonally spaced, and they can be of different strength. That can be corrected surgically or (as in article) optically, with differing rates of success, and for some people, specially cut glasses will provide excellent tracking but if the person is very tired or removes the glasses, the eyes will stop tracking together fairly quickly. Pardon me, ophthalmic doctors out there, if I'm grossly wrong.
There was a recent article in The New Yorker about the Bush Administration's relationship with science in the US. One person who was not a member of the Admin but did advise them on medical issues said, when asked about an HIV vaccine, that they would have to take a very hard look at it before recommending the FDA allow its release to the public, for exactly the reasons you say. So yeah: you're entirely correct.
I'm interested in how you define metabolism, coz I don't really know how I'd define it if I had to. During the lytic/lysogenic stages of virus reproduction, their genetic information is in a functioning cell, there's activity going on (at least in the lytic phase) that consumes nutrients and produces proteins and more genetic material. That's definitely part of how I'd define metabolism if I weren't specifically trying to exclude viruses. Yeah, viruses don't have a Krebs cycle, but there are bacteria that don't have a complete Krebs cycle, either.
See, the thing is, I don't think a virus is alive, but I don't have a deep reason for that, just an assertion based on an opinion. Unless I screw around with definitions and assign meanings specifically to push a point of view, it's hard for me to back up that opinion. Hence: what's metabolism?
Yet there are bacteria like the ones I was talking about, obligate intracellular ones, that don't really have a meaningful metabolism if they're outside of a host cell. Bacterial spores, likewise, don't have any metabolism in any real sense of the word: they're waiting for a life form on whose metabolism they can bootstrap their way back to life. So how's that different from a virus? I'm not saying viruses are alive. I'm just saying it's hard to define why they're not.
There are lots of parasites that cannot live without something else -- in fact, that might be a good definition for parasite. (It's not THE definition but it has a lot it.) They're pretty clearly alive. So is a virus?
I think we can agree that bacteria are alive. But there are types of bacteria, the ones that cause leprosy and chlamydia, frinstance, that cannot reproduce outside of a living cell. (They, unlike most bacteria, invade and live inside cells.) It's fairly difficult to draw a hard line between them and some viruses that have lipid bilayers full of receptors on their outsides. Even prions self-amplify, so where do you draw the lines on what's alive?
The FAA already says that for any distance under 500 miles, driving is faster because of the commute/airport boarding/airport deplaning slowness and that's with aircraft doing 550 mph. Mach 7 speeds up air travel like not washing your hands speeds up going to the bathroom.
here's a wobble yoke flash animation.
can't find a picture of a swashplate engine but here's the old dyna-cam patent. It's not particularly clear what they're talking about but nobody seems to have online pictures. Scroll down this page about halfway and they have a cross-section drawn. If you do an image search on google under 'dyna-cam engine' you'll see what they were working on.
I do but they're all to pages in microbiology books I have on my shelves, alas. I'll look around, though.
Want to make a very simple ring oscillator? Get three cheap nightlights -- the ones that turn on when it's dark -- and plug them all in on extension cords close to one another, so that each one's light is near another one's light detection cell. Congratulations: you've just made a three-unit ring oscillator. They operate at about 0.5Hz. It's also easy to make five and seven unit oscillators, of course.
For extra credit, making NOR gates using nightlights is fairly easy but making NAND gates takes quite a bit of fussing around. Flipflops are dead easy. If you can do all those you can build a half-adder circuit with carry bit, and you're well on your way to a very, very slow, large, hot optical computer.
The latter: you fire one jet down the throat of the second jet. You run the first one significantly lean so that you're only burning a small fraction of the available oxygen, the remainder of which is burnt in the second jet. You use high pressure and, presumably, combustion chamber geometry or possibly even resonant pulses to make sure that the thrust from the first jet is primarily backwards, then constrict the duct to increase the speed to the point where the compression conditions are right for the second jet. Once you get the whole thing off the ground and moving at a reasonable rate, you stop injecting at the back and just inject at the front. Presumably you'd have to reconfigure your exhaust chamber geometry. He was not keen on giving me lots of details, but really wanted to talk about the project.
By the way, piston engines only use a fraction of the oxygen from the air that passes through them, and turbofans used on commercial jetliners use maybe only 5% of the oxygen, if that. Pure turbojets use more of the available oxygen but not, as I recall, all of it.
While you're basically completely right, I do have an amiga emulator for my PC and mounted my old amiga HD (upgrade, of course) in a linux box to move all the text and graphics over. It was surprisingly easy, but as far as programs go, would be unsurprisingly pointless.
One of the first things they looked at was bodily fluids, with the early microscopes, but there are so many other wiggly, squiggly things to see, that are much larger and easier to see (sperm are *really* small cells compared to rotifers and bacteria with vibrating or rotary cilia/flagella) that by the time they got good enough to see the really small stuff they were probably initially wondering whether those were just more of what they'd already seen.
Probably fairly high. I recall him and a number of other early microscopists being convinced that they could see a little tiny human embryo in the head, much like the early telescopists were convinced they could see canals on Mars.