Interesting info. To clarify, most of the the radioisotope dispersal both inside and outside the plant was due to fire - other types of reactors would not disperse the material that way, and would not require firefighters to be put at risk to contain fire and associated radiation dispersal. I also wonder how statistically significant 212 out of 72,000 is compared to a control group and what the dose / risk curve looks like. Even the very high 2.4 mGy/d of animals at Cherynobl is not at all that unhealthy if it's low-Q such as x- or gamma rather than alpha. The Luckey paper below has a reference finding positive effects on rat fertility and litters even after 12 generations at 20mGy/d. Most of the abandoned area has lower doses and a large part of the animal dose can be avoided by humans by eating food grown elsewhere.
Regarding the ICRP/NCRP et al. adherence to the linear no-threshold model, Dr. Rockwell put it well:
It seems that money we call wasted on needless studies and "decontamination" of harmless levels of radiation is in fact someone else's income. A great deal of money is being made from the fear of radiation, and reputations are built on studying, remediating and regulating it. Physicist John Cameron quotes Tolstoy in this connection:
I know that most men, even those who are clever and capable of understanding the most difficult scientific, mathematical or philosophical problems, can seldom discern even the most obvious truth if it be such as obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed perhaps with much difficulty-conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.
While the strength of the evidence for beneficial radiation hormesis can certainly be argued, it has to be said that the evidence for the alleged low dose* risks in properly controlled studies is very, very thin, and if it exists at all, its effect size is proven to be tiny.
Here is a better paper than the ones in my previous post.on the evidence for radiation hormesis: Radiation Hormesis Overview by T. D. Luckey Some very large and well controlled studies seem to have shown statistically significant and large positive health effects.
And another prominent radiation scientist speaks against the linear no-threshold risk model: a href="http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/case_for_nuclear _radiation.htm"WHO WILL SPEAK FOR TRUTH? The Case of Nuclear Radiation by Dr. Theodore Rockwell
*(by "low dose" I mean roughly 100 mSv/yr = 100mGy of x or gamma = 10 rem = ~10x avg. airline crew member = ~30x avg. background = 2x the current limit for US radiation workers = 1/10th the limit for Soviet radworkers)
Well, it would be hard to get any safer. What other big US industry has such a spotless safety record? Not coal or any of the other fossil fuels, that's for sure.
The "storage problem" was artificially created by the decision not to reprocess spent fuel and not to construct reactors which could use reprocessed fuel. The rest of the high-level waste can be transmuted in a reactor or if not, vitrified and buried, perhaps even in a mid-ocean subduction zone, if the excessively paranoid have to be humored. The higher the radioactivity, the shorter the half life, so long-term disposal isn't really that big a need. It's far more likely that we'd eventually find some good use for such unusual isotopes than that they would cause any health or environmental problems if they are stored in proper containers at a nuclear lab.
Low-level waste isn't a problem either - dilute and recycle it into construction and consumer goods. A moderate amount of extra radiation has been proven to be remarkably beneficial to health.
"Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now."
I didn't quote that because it was pure opinion not supported by the sources cited. Curiously, taken at face value that quote also undermines your and the author's contention that the current press coverage of climate change is more responsible than it was in the '70s. Given the present popular press' continual doomsday drumbeat regarding supposedly anthropogenic and severe global warming, the press' admitted present lack of scientific rigor tends to call the current conventional climate wisdom into futher question rather than support it.
"there would be another ice age in *tens of thousands of years*." You mean "within" not "in". Also note the 1940s-1970s cooling trend mentioned as the occasion for concern at the time.
The climate either gets cooler or warmer - the one thing it NEVER does is stay exactly the same. Taking changes in climate as evidence of anything has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
As for the climate models, the problem scales as what, perhaps n^(3.x) at best? So even if there is 1E9 times more power available, the simulation is at best only 1000 times faster than in the '70s. And you're still talking about a chaotic system modeled at >1km resolution with complicated ad-hoc algorithms that are usually not fully available for independent review, so you're just running a more obfuscated kind of garbage faster. Particularly when the models still don't fully predict the behavior of the most impotant greenhouse gas, water vapor, and its interdependence with the most major cooling factor, clouds. Can these computer climate models retrodict past obervations? Can they do so with a code complexity less than the prediction complexity and produce robust predictions despite small variations in the initial states? No? Then don't ask anyone to take their predictions seriously.
As far as public health is concerned, TMI was a non-event. Nor has any nuclear power plant had an accident that resulted in casualties that were even comparable to monthly deaths from automobile wrecks. The Chernyobl deaths were the result of fire, which cannot occur in a properly designed plant. Even a Chernyobl-style plant's potential danger pales in comparison to many chemical plants. The supposedly uninhabitable area near Chernyobl is actually ecologically thriving compared to when it was inhabited. Virtually all of that area is actually inhabitable, although often not usable for agriculture due to the potential for concentrating certain isotopes in food.
The enhanced backround radiation near Chernyobl is lower than the natural radiation level in some places such as Ramsar, Iran, and the hormesiseffect makes it likely that people living near Chernyobl will actually be healthier than they otherwise would have been.
Isn't realclimate.org by the guy who fudged his analysis to generate the discredited "hockey-stick" graph of temperature predictions?
Even so, your link does not refute the GP poster's point at all. In fact, it reinforces it. From the concluding paragraph:
Finally, its clear that there were concerns,[about a potential new ice age] perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available.
[and present climate knowledge still does not allow reliable predictions]
So are you attempting to say that: because the concern was not unanimous (it never is) and scientists believed further study was warranted (they always say that) that the concern about global cooling was not common among climate researchers? It can't be denied that global cooling concerns were widely reported in the popular press in the 1970s, while global warming concerns were not.
If press reports of the 1970s are not to be taken seriously, those of today regarding the nature and origins of climate change should also be viewed with healthy skepticism.
LOL - Having worked in a law office (non-IP), your story is just about how clients usually tell their tales of woe when they first come in - except yours didn't have quite enough irrelevancies and had a bit too much useful information.
IANAL but I believe their infringement becomes willful as soon as you or your lawyer give them notice of the subject matter of your patent and the how their product infringes.
Bottom line, though - if they have lawyers and you don't, you lose. Even if you have lawyers AND you win the case AND actually collect on the judgement a few years down the line, if the court doesn't grant judgement for your legal expenses (and they generally don't) then you are still going to end up owing your lawyers money when the whole thing is done unless the judgement collected is in the millions. You won't get thet that kind of judgement unless the company you sued has sold more than $20M worth of your toilet seats. BUT if they managed to sell that kind of volume before you sent your letter informaing them of infringement, or if you can't find or can't pay a lawyer to file suit on your behalf, then you are in danger of losing your patent for failure to defend it.
Furthermore, obtaining a patent in the first place was just a license to get into this kind of mess.
I may be wrong here, but from what I remember from high school LEDs produce light by making an electrical arc over a _very_ short distance.
No, LEDs work by using a voltage to push charge carriers in a semiconductor diode above the "bandgap" of the diode (the energy level at which the diode starts to conduct, which is determined by the type of semiconductor material used).
One part of the diode has positive charge carriers, the other has negative charge carriers, like so: +V ---{ p | n }--- V- Because like charges repel, the positive voltage pushes the positive charge carriers to the p-n junction in the center and the negative voltage also pushes the negative charge carriers to the p-n junction. The energy released when the positive and negative charges combine in the p-n junction comes out as light of a frequency (color) determined by the bandgap voltage.
This is a quantum process: Energy = Planck's constant * frequency (or E = h*f, often written E=h*v - that's a nu, not a v).
Sparks require a voltage that is higher the farther apart the electrodes are, and the highest frequency light produced does depend on the voltage, but sparks produce broad rather than monochromatic spectra with energy emitted down to very low frequencies.
** As an aside, one can measure Planck's constant using LEDs:
Since the energy per charge carrier is the voltage times the charge (Electron-volts, which can be converted to Joules by multiplying by the factor coulombs per electron, 1.6E-19) and the wavelength is known from the manufacturer's data sheets and can be converted to frequency by:
frequency(Hz, 1/s) = speed of light(3E8 m/s) divided by wavelength(m, usually listed in nm = 10E-9m), given LEDs of known frequencies one can measure Planck's constant.
h = E/f = [V*(1.6E-19 Coulombs)*(wavelength in nm)*(1E-9 m/nm)]/(3E8 m/s) or
h (in Joule-seconds) = 5.3E-37 giga-coulomb-seconds * voltage * wavelength in nm.
Other factors make this an inaccurately low measure - the voltage needed to light the LED is lower than E = hf would indicate. (Perhaps it's the high energy tail in the distribution of thermal electron energies?)
A potentially more accurate way to get h is to note that in E = h*f, when E is graphed against f, then h is the slope of the line. Variations in eye sensitivity and LED efficiency also introduce inaccuracies here, but green and orange LEDs seem to give a slope very close to the correct number.
(Also note that you need single-color diodes - the "yellow" diodes commonly found are really red+green in a single package.)
The sensitivity of the eye to R, G, or B is relatively wide-spectrum compared to LEDs. which are nearly monochromatic. For display purposes, tight spectra work well, but when used for lighting of objects which have narrow reflecivity spectra which do not match the spectra of the lights, the colors appear distorted, often severely. For example, an oil slick which appears as a continuous rainbow in sunlight will appear as a series of RGB bands under an RGB LED light. A more common case is poor color accuracy of items dyed with highly saturated non-primary color dyes: if a dye only reflects magenta, for instance, but not blue or red, it will appear grey under RGB light. (I'm glossing over complications with how different kinds of coloring agents and methods actually work which don't relly affect the essential concept.)
I've been wondering about the special case of US gold Eagles - they are legal currency with a denomination of $50/oz. but a value of >$630/oz.. So if sombody pays me in gold Eagles, and I don't sell the coins, then I shouldn't have to report more than the face value of the currency on my taxes, right? There is no sales tax on US currency such as gold Eagles, so the same theory should work for income tax, too, right? (Except for the unwritten government-always-wins clause in the interpretation of tax law...)
It isn't. An elite BellSouth tech with 30+ years experience told me about a similar secret monitoring room in downtown Atlanta he had worked on in the mid-to-late '90s. He implied that it was FBI-run, but that there was no effective company monitoring of the extent of the tapping.
Experienced physicians aren't hurting for cash. $150k is a higher average salary than any other common profession. Many specialist surgeons in big cities do make seven figures - not bad for manual labor. Most of those making under $150k are residents or primary care physicians (mostly what used to be called "non-specialists"), or are practicing in areas with low costs of living. In urban and suburban areas, $150k for an experienced meat mechanic is considered "poor".
Languages per se are generally easy, but knowing the libraries well takes much more time and learning the undocumented quirks of the whole toolset takes actual experience.
"Nanotechnology" as re-coined* by Eric Drexler did originally mean self replicating systems of machines with atomically precise parts. Once this innovative idea made nanotechnology known to the public, the term was hijacked for funding purposes by chemists and people working with thin films, fine powders and droplets. Since the term had gotten so debased, Drexler started calling his kind of nanotech "molecular nanotechnology".
*"Nanotechnology" had been used at least once before Drexler, but the term was not adopted by any group.
Quite right, but "truly random" is an exceptionally slippery concept. Any given apparently-random sequence of sufficient length could turn out to be highly compressible, but by the pigeonhole theorem the same is certainly not true for all sequences.
You'd be surprised how big and empty the pipes to the DSLAMs are, let alone in the core ATM network - 10% of capacity at most for 99% of the links, the very heaviest loads run maybe 40-60%, and that is just a function of the software settings or the cards at either end of the fibre. The big telcos have a real dog-in-the-manger attitude toward providing bandwidth.
BellSouth built the phone and data net in the SE using taxpayer money and government enforced monopoly pricing. They do everything they can to prevent technological advances such as WiFi from putting a dent in their obsolete business model. Their executives are troglodytes, even by the low standards of big telecom companies. Louisiana has been ignored by BS for decades - just about any few square miles of costal south Florida has more service than all of Louisiana put together.
New Orleans should tell BS to get stuffed - BS has no right to a monopoly over data or any other services. Louisiana should excercise eminent domain over the network if BS doesn't do as they're told and deliver service promptly and according to the tariffs.
I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted. Question: do you think that Rasch measures such as the change-sensitive scores on the new Stanford-Binet V are on a ratio or rather an interval scale? In other words, do such measures have a meaningful zero point so that one can say that Alice is 5% smarter than Bob?
Research has demonstrated a strong correlation between IQ and sucess in all levels of jobs as well as marriage and other areas of life. The correlation is not equal to 1, so there will be smart people who fail and less smart people who succeed. The best article I could find quickly which supports this is from Scientific American: The General Intelligence Factor
Very few long-term smokers get lung cancer. Smokers are less likely to get colon cancer than the general population due to increased bowel motility. However, most smokers will eventually get emphysema or heart disease and overall their lives are not only shorter but their final years are unpleasant. Strokes and circulatory problems are the other major causes of morbidity and mortality among smokers. Lung cancer is relatively rare and comparatively quick, though certainly not merciful.
Slashdot Mirror
...it's lickable...
no, I'm pretty sure that voids the warranty
To clarify, most of the the radioisotope dispersal both inside and outside the plant was due to fire - other types of reactors would not disperse the material that way, and would not require firefighters to be put at risk to contain fire and associated radiation dispersal. I also wonder how statistically significant 212 out of 72,000 is compared to a control group and what the dose / risk curve looks like.
Even the very high 2.4 mGy/d of animals at Cherynobl is not at all that unhealthy if it's low-Q such as x- or gamma rather than alpha. The Luckey paper below has a reference finding positive effects on rat fertility and litters even after 12 generations at 20mGy/d. Most of the abandoned area has lower doses and a large part of the animal dose can be avoided by humans by eating food grown elsewhere.
Regarding the ICRP/NCRP et al. adherence to the linear no-threshold model, Dr. Rockwell put it well:
While the strength of the evidence for beneficial radiation hormesis can certainly be argued, it has to be said that the evidence for the alleged low dose* risks in properly controlled studies is very, very thin, and if it exists at all, its effect size is proven to be tiny.
Here is a better paper than the ones in my previous post.on the evidence for radiation hormesis: Radiation Hormesis Overview by T. D. Luckey
Some very large and well controlled studies seem to have shown statistically significant and large positive health effects.
And another prominent radiation scientist speaks against the linear no-threshold risk model:
a href="http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/case_for_nuclea
*(by "low dose" I mean roughly 100 mSv/yr = 100mGy of x or gamma = 10 rem = ~10x avg. airline crew member = ~30x avg. background = 2x the current limit for US radiation workers = 1/10th the limit for Soviet radworkers)
Well, it would be hard to get any safer. What other big US industry has such a spotless safety record? Not coal or any of the other fossil fuels, that's for sure.
The "storage problem" was artificially created by the decision not to reprocess spent fuel and not to construct reactors which could use reprocessed fuel. The rest of the high-level waste can be transmuted in a reactor or if not, vitrified and buried, perhaps even in a mid-ocean subduction zone, if the excessively paranoid have to be humored. The higher the radioactivity, the shorter the half life, so long-term disposal isn't really that big a need. It's far more likely that we'd eventually find some good use for such unusual isotopes than that they would cause any health or environmental problems if they are stored in proper containers at a nuclear lab.
Low-level waste isn't a problem either - dilute and recycle it into construction and consumer goods. A moderate amount of extra radiation has been proven to be remarkably beneficial to health.
"Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now."
I didn't quote that because it was pure opinion not supported by the sources cited. Curiously, taken at face value that quote also undermines your and the author's contention that the current press coverage of climate change is more responsible than it was in the '70s. Given the present popular press' continual doomsday drumbeat regarding supposedly anthropogenic and severe global warming, the press' admitted present lack of scientific rigor tends to call the current conventional climate wisdom into futher question rather than support it.
"there would be another ice age in *tens of thousands of years*."
You mean "within" not "in". Also note the 1940s-1970s cooling trend mentioned as the occasion for concern at the time.
The climate either gets cooler or warmer - the one thing it NEVER does is stay exactly the same. Taking changes in climate as evidence of anything has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
As for the climate models, the problem scales as what, perhaps n^(3.x) at best? So even if there is 1E9 times more power available, the simulation is at best only 1000 times faster than in the '70s. And you're still talking about a chaotic system modeled at >1km resolution with complicated ad-hoc algorithms that are usually not fully available for independent review, so you're just running a more obfuscated kind of garbage faster. Particularly when the models still don't fully predict the behavior of the most impotant greenhouse gas, water vapor, and its interdependence with the most major cooling factor, clouds. Can these computer climate models retrodict past obervations? Can they do so with a code complexity less than the prediction complexity and produce robust predictions despite small variations in the initial states? No? Then don't ask anyone to take their predictions seriously.
As far as public health is concerned, TMI was a non-event. Nor has any nuclear power plant had an accident that resulted in casualties that were even comparable to monthly deaths from automobile wrecks. The Chernyobl deaths were the result of fire, which cannot occur in a properly designed plant. Even a Chernyobl-style plant's potential danger pales in comparison to many chemical plants. The supposedly uninhabitable area near Chernyobl is actually ecologically thriving compared to when it was inhabited. Virtually all of that area is actually inhabitable, although often not usable for agriculture due to the potential for concentrating certain isotopes in food.
The enhanced backround radiation near Chernyobl is lower than the natural radiation level in some places such as Ramsar, Iran, and the hormesis effect makes it likely that people living near Chernyobl will actually be healthier than they otherwise would have been.
Even so, your link does not refute the GP poster's point at all. In fact, it reinforces it.
From the concluding paragraph:
[and present climate knowledge still does not allow reliable predictions]
So are you attempting to say that: because the concern was not unanimous (it never is) and scientists believed further study was warranted (they always say that) that the concern about global cooling was not common among climate researchers? It can't be denied that global cooling concerns were widely reported in the popular press in the 1970s, while global warming concerns were not.
If press reports of the 1970s are not to be taken seriously, those of today regarding the nature and origins of climate change should also be viewed with healthy skepticism.
LOL - Having worked in a law office (non-IP), your story is just about how clients usually tell their tales of woe when they first come in - except yours didn't have quite enough irrelevancies and had a bit too much useful information.
IANAL but I believe their infringement becomes willful as soon as you or your lawyer give them notice of the subject matter of your patent and the how their product infringes.
Bottom line, though - if they have lawyers and you don't, you lose. Even if you have lawyers AND you win the case AND actually collect on the judgement a few years down the line, if the court doesn't grant judgement for your legal expenses (and they generally don't) then you are still going to end up owing your lawyers money when the whole thing is done unless the judgement collected is in the millions. You won't get thet that kind of judgement unless the company you sued has sold more than $20M worth of your toilet seats. BUT if they managed to sell that kind of volume before you sent your letter informaing them of infringement, or if you can't find or can't pay a lawyer to file suit on your behalf, then you are in danger of losing your patent for failure to defend it.
Furthermore, obtaining a patent in the first place was just a license to get into this kind of mess.
I may be wrong here, but from what I remember from high school LEDs produce light by making an electrical arc over a _very_ short distance.
No, LEDs work by using a voltage to push charge carriers in a semiconductor diode above the "bandgap" of the diode (the energy level at which the diode starts to conduct, which is determined by the type of semiconductor material used).
One part of the diode has positive charge carriers, the other has negative charge carriers, like so: +V ---{ p | n }--- V- Because like charges repel, the positive voltage pushes the positive charge carriers to the p-n junction in the center and the negative voltage also pushes the negative charge carriers to the p-n junction. The energy released when the positive and negative charges combine in the p-n junction comes out as light of a frequency (color) determined by the bandgap voltage.
This is a quantum process: Energy = Planck's constant * frequency (or E = h*f, often written E=h*v - that's a nu, not a v).
Sparks require a voltage that is higher the farther apart the electrodes are, and the highest frequency light produced does depend on the voltage, but sparks produce broad rather than monochromatic spectra with energy emitted down to very low frequencies.
**
As an aside, one can measure Planck's constant using LEDs:
Since the energy per charge carrier is the voltage times the charge (Electron-volts, which can be converted to Joules by multiplying by the factor coulombs per electron, 1.6E-19) and the wavelength is known from the manufacturer's data sheets and can be converted to frequency by:
frequency(Hz, 1/s) = speed of light(3E8 m/s) divided by wavelength(m, usually listed in nm = 10E-9m), given LEDs of known frequencies one can measure Planck's constant.
h = E/f = [V*(1.6E-19 Coulombs)*(wavelength in nm)*(1E-9 m/nm)]/(3E8 m/s) or
h (in Joule-seconds) = 5.3E-37 giga-coulomb-seconds * voltage * wavelength in nm.
Other factors make this an inaccurately low measure - the voltage needed to light the LED is lower than E = hf would indicate. (Perhaps it's the high energy tail in the distribution of thermal electron energies?)
A potentially more accurate way to get h is to note that in E = h*f, when E is graphed against f, then h is the slope of the line. Variations in eye sensitivity and LED efficiency also introduce inaccuracies here, but green and orange LEDs seem to give a slope very close to the correct number.
(Also note that you need single-color diodes - the "yellow" diodes commonly found are really red+green in a single package.)
See CERNs page on Jules Hoult's high school lab lesson plan:
lab sudent worksheet
results results graph
The sensitivity of the eye to R, G, or B is relatively wide-spectrum compared to LEDs. which are nearly monochromatic. For display purposes, tight spectra work well, but when used for lighting of objects which have narrow reflecivity spectra which do not match the spectra of the lights, the colors appear distorted, often severely. For example, an oil slick which appears as a continuous rainbow in sunlight will appear as a series of RGB bands under an RGB LED light. A more common case is poor color accuracy of items dyed with highly saturated non-primary color dyes: if a dye only reflects magenta, for instance, but not blue or red, it will appear grey under RGB light. (I'm glossing over complications with how different kinds of coloring agents and methods actually work which don't relly affect the essential concept.)
As sombody once pointed out, "if the hangover only preceeded the intoxication, alcoholism would be considered a virtue"
I've been wondering about the special case of US gold Eagles - they are legal currency with a denomination of $50/oz. but a value of >$630/oz.. So if sombody pays me in gold Eagles, and I don't sell the coins, then I shouldn't have to report more than the face value of the currency on my taxes, right? There is no sales tax on US currency such as gold Eagles, so the same theory should work for income tax, too, right? (Except for the unwritten government-always-wins clause in the interpretation of tax law...)
"what makes you think that this limited to ATT"
It isn't. An elite BellSouth tech with 30+ years experience told me about a similar secret monitoring room in downtown Atlanta he had worked on in the mid-to-late '90s. He implied that it was FBI-run, but that there was no effective company monitoring of the extent of the tapping.
Agreed. (Except the part about Lisp and fractals. Nice in theory, but not usually a practical solution.)
Anybody who signs up for a C++ job and then complains that it is a soul-killing grind is just too clueless for me to even bother mocking.
Experienced physicians aren't hurting for cash. $150k is a higher average salary than any other common profession. Many specialist surgeons in big cities do make seven figures - not bad for manual labor. Most of those making under $150k are residents or primary care physicians (mostly what used to be called "non-specialists"), or are practicing in areas with low costs of living. In urban and suburban areas, $150k for an experienced meat mechanic is considered "poor".
From a large survey:
Average for >3 years experience:
High-pay:
Cardiovascular Surgery $558,719 (Lowest = $351,108)
Neurosurgery $438,426 (Lowest = $279,655)
Radiology $347,380 (Lowest = $225,181)
Anesthesiology $301,802 (Lowest = $219,850)
Low-pay:
Pediatrics $149,754 (Lowest = $111,113)
Family Practice $147,516 (Lowest = $111,894)
Languages per se are generally easy, but knowing the libraries well takes much more time and learning the undocumented quirks of the whole toolset takes actual experience.
"Nanotechnology" as re-coined* by Eric Drexler did originally mean self replicating systems of machines with atomically precise parts. Once this innovative idea made nanotechnology known to the public, the term was hijacked for funding purposes by chemists and people working with thin films, fine powders and droplets. Since the term had gotten so debased, Drexler started calling his kind of nanotech "molecular nanotechnology".
*"Nanotechnology" had been used at least once before Drexler, but the term was not adopted by any group.
"Australia is a multi-cultural nation"
... what's the other one?
OK, Chinese, sure
"trully random data can not be compressed"
Quite right, but "truly random" is an exceptionally slippery concept. Any given apparently-random sequence of sufficient length could turn out to be highly compressible, but by the pigeonhole theorem the same is certainly not true for all sequences.
You'd be surprised how big and empty the pipes to the DSLAMs are, let alone in the core ATM network - 10% of capacity at most for 99% of the links, the very heaviest loads run maybe 40-60%, and that is just a function of the software settings or the cards at either end of the fibre. The big telcos have a real dog-in-the-manger attitude toward providing bandwidth.
BellSouth built the phone and data net in the SE using taxpayer money and government enforced monopoly pricing. They do everything they can to prevent technological advances such as WiFi from putting a dent in their obsolete business model. Their executives are troglodytes, even by the low standards of big telecom companies. Louisiana has been ignored by BS for decades - just about any few square miles of costal south Florida has more service than all of Louisiana put together.
New Orleans should tell BS to get stuffed - BS has no right to a monopoly over data or any other services. Louisiana should excercise eminent domain over the network if BS doesn't do as they're told and deliver service promptly and according to the tariffs.
Your example can be compressed to the minimal algorithm for the pseudorandom number generator you used plus the seed it used to produce your data.
I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted.
Question: do you think that Rasch measures such as the change-sensitive scores on the new Stanford-Binet V are on a ratio or rather an interval scale? In other words, do such measures have a meaningful zero point so that one can say that Alice is 5% smarter than Bob?
Research has demonstrated a strong correlation between IQ and sucess in all levels of jobs as well as marriage and other areas of life. The correlation is not equal to 1, so there will be smart people who fail and less smart people who succeed. The best article I could find quickly which supports this is from Scientific American: The General Intelligence Factor
Very few long-term smokers get lung cancer. Smokers are less likely to get colon cancer than the general population due to increased bowel motility. However, most smokers will eventually get emphysema or heart disease and overall their lives are not only shorter but their final years are unpleasant. Strokes and circulatory problems are the other major causes of morbidity and mortality among smokers. Lung cancer is relatively rare and comparatively quick, though certainly not merciful.
"the West stands for depravity, loose women and degenerate morals"
I'll drink to that, unless there's a stripper and some cocaine handy instead...