That doesn't mean it wasn't flawed. Bees don't drink sugar water in nature. The checking of the 'taste' of neonics is only one aspect that needs tested. Is this masked by non-taste responses to normal nectar?
It doesn't work the same as holding your breath. When you breath a gas containing no oxygen, oxygen streams out of your blood, as it is lower oxygen than the blood, and that is how the blood 'knows' to dump oxygen. This means that what's coming out of the lungs is largely deoxygenated blood, not oxygenated. This rapidly causes unconsciousness - much faster than just holding your breath. It's a not uncommon industrial accident. You don't really notice it - there is no shortness of breath, you simply feel a bit woozy one breath, and then are unconscious the next, and the next breath may not happen.
The components used to make a DAB reciever, while they have come down lots in price and power use recently - still use a _LOT_ of power - from the point of view of something running on small batteries. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Robert... - for example. 4-5 hours on two AA cells. FM radios (at modest volume on headphones) can last over 200, with the same cells.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... - would seem to have come to the other conclusion in a somewhat similar case. Was this under a different section of the ADA - or is this discriminated from in some manner.
mW= 1/1000th of a watt. mW=W = parts per 1000 efficiency.
480mW/W = 0.48W of light out for every watt of electricity in. This is a deep blue LED. It is very bad if you measure it in lumens per watt because the eye is quite insensitive to blue light.
Whatever the answer - 30%/44% (and you can't do it that way, you've got to integrate over the spectral response of the eye and see if you actually care about colour - green light at 600lm/W is not a functional white light) - is still vastly higher than 10%.
You cannot get the highest efficiency per watt LED bulbs, simply because they would require more LEDs than are absolutely required, and cost more, for no consumer visible benefit other than the watts.
The writer of the original article should be shot, hung, shot, and then boiled.
It is riddled with so many inaccuracies that it's meaningless. '10%' - yes - 10% is mentioned ' Our first devices already exhibit an extrinsic quantum efficiency of nearly 10% and the emission can be tuned over a wide range of frequencies by appropriately choosing and combining 2D semiconductors' But going from that to LED efficiency is ridiculous.
It is comedically ridiculous to claim that it's going to result in products this year.
It's worth noting that the best existing 'warm white' LEDs bulbs can already produce about twice as much light per watt as compact florescent. (if they are made with around double the normal number of LEDs and a more efficient power supply).
This perfectly answers the question of where to get emergency housing in a place easily accessible by trucks for people who have wifi to entertain themselves and are in areas secure enough that going to the external toilet is not dangerous.
Violating the manufacturers instructions runs the risk of damaging equipment - and - for example - having sharp bits of the broken equipment stab the patient.
You are not required to incriminate yourself. This however does not mean you cannot be compelled to give physical items,or access to physical items (including fingerprints). The cops have no right to demand you produce your passphrase. They have a right to demand the bit of paper they know you wrote the passphrase on.
Licence has a qrcode or similar onto the DMV website. (proper verification apps ensure that the URL is actually the DMV website and ignore any other URL)
Software runs on hardware - yes. Software cannot increase the capabilities of hardware - well - not quite. The most literal meaning of this - apart from limited things like overclocking is of course broadly true but may be hugely misleading. If you've got a really advanced program on each of a network of computers, doing a given task - there are many ways in which it can seem to increase its capabilities, without really doing so.
Giving up the designated task and freeing resources. Co-opting other systems into adding to its resource. Optimising the way it performs the task so that it at least does it reasonably well, but much cheaper. Sharing computations over multiple devices which were expected to be done on one.
There are many systems where 'dumb' algorithms are tens, or thousands of times less efficient than optimum ones. Optimum algorithms are in many cases intractable for humans to find.
Optimising computational efficiency over time as machine learning is a really valuable thing to do. Looked at from another angle, this can come quite close to 'evolution'.
However, at this stage, it is not required. Simply as the threat is well over ten years out. How much over - good question. Is it too early to raise concerns and encourage people to go into fields where they may think seriously about this topic - no.
If the tax code was rational. The problems are that multiple levels of tax code interact in complex ways that vary with the exact addresses involved in the claim. So, you're not writing one codebase which does taxes, but in a very real sense, thousands.
The above comment is especially fun - because it varies. Some animals you keep you have no liability over their actions, and some you do. (in the UK) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...
For example - you are liable for the damage livestock causes to others property. But this is only "cattle, horses, asses, mules, hinnies, sheep, pigs, goats and poultry, and also deer not in the wild state and, in sections 3 and 9, also, while in captivity, pheasants, partridges and grouse; poultry” means the domestic varieties of the following, that is to say, fowls, turkeys, geese, ducks, guinea-fowls, pigeons, peacocks and quails"
Ostriches, camels, llamas, kangaroos, cats, dogs, parrots, peacocks are not listed, so you aren't.
Unless your dog damages other peoples livestock. If it savages a Kangaroo - no liability. Or if your cat kills chickens.
For added fun - this varies. In the EU, 'sweat of brow' copyright is generally recognised - if you spent a lot of effort doing something, you may have it copyrighted - even though it is merely a collection of facts. In the US, this is much less true.
You sort-of-can control the range. In the case of a hotel - a wifi AP per room, with very low power, and another box - also set to very low power to do deauthentication attacks on the client in that room. Each rooms 'jammer' is only active when a strong local signal tries to access the outside AP - and only has enough power to jam that room.
It would not affect people outside the hotel more than marginally - as the 'jammer' would not be recievable by them due to its low power.
No, a simple per-hotel jammer can't do this, and the above is much more expensive than such a thing.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't mean it wasn't flawed.
Bees don't drink sugar water in nature.
The checking of the 'taste' of neonics is only one aspect that needs tested.
Is this masked by non-taste responses to normal nectar?
It doesn't work the same as holding your breath.
When you breath a gas containing no oxygen, oxygen streams out of your blood, as it is lower oxygen than the blood, and that is how the blood 'knows' to dump oxygen.
This means that what's coming out of the lungs is largely deoxygenated blood, not oxygenated.
This rapidly causes unconsciousness - much faster than just holding your breath.
It's a not uncommon industrial accident.
You don't really notice it - there is no shortness of breath, you simply feel a bit woozy one breath, and then are unconscious the next, and the next breath may not happen.
The components used to make a DAB reciever, while they have come down lots in price and power use recently - still use a _LOT_ of power - from the point of view of something running on small batteries.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Robert... - for example.
4-5 hours on two AA cells.
FM radios (at modest volume on headphones) can last over 200, with the same cells.
And say that availability of alcohol has a vastly higher effect than 5%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... - would seem to have come to the other conclusion in a somewhat similar case.
Was this under a different section of the ADA - or is this discriminated from in some manner.
mW= 1/1000th of a watt.
mW=W = parts per 1000 efficiency.
480mW/W = 0.48W of light out for every watt of electricity in.
This is a deep blue LED.
It is very bad if you measure it in lumens per watt because the eye is quite insensitive to blue light.
Whatever the answer - 30%/44% (and you can't do it that way, you've got to integrate over the spectral response of the eye and see if you actually care about colour - green light at 600lm/W is not a functional white light) - is still vastly higher than 10%.
You cannot get the highest efficiency per watt LED bulbs, simply because they would require more LEDs than are absolutely required, and cost more, for no consumer visible benefit other than the watts.
Err - no.
Look at the URL, there is a clue why you're spectacularly wrong.
Current LEDs (blue ones, which white is based on) exceed 50% quantum efficiency.
http://www.digikey.com/product... - for example - does 48% electricity to light.
http://optics.org/news/6/2/6
http://www.nature.com/nmat/jou...
The writer of the original article should be shot, hung, shot, and then boiled.
It is riddled with so many inaccuracies that it's meaningless.
'10%' - yes - 10% is mentioned ' Our first devices already exhibit an extrinsic quantum efficiency of nearly 10% and the emission can be tuned over a wide range of frequencies by appropriately choosing and combining 2D semiconductors'
But going from that to LED efficiency is ridiculous.
It is comedically ridiculous to claim that it's going to result in products this year.
It's worth noting that the best existing 'warm white' LEDs bulbs can already produce about twice as much light per watt as compact florescent.
(if they are made with around double the normal number of LEDs and a more efficient power supply).
This perfectly answers the question of where to get emergency housing in a place easily accessible by trucks for people who have wifi to
entertain themselves and are in areas secure enough that going to the external toilet is not dangerous.
It's called an autobiography.
Is the mill in question over $50/lb?
Violating the manufacturers instructions runs the risk of damaging equipment - and - for example - having sharp bits of the broken equipment stab the patient.
You are not required to incriminate yourself.
This however does not mean you cannot be compelled to give physical items,or access to physical items (including fingerprints).
The cops have no right to demand you produce your passphrase.
They have a right to demand the bit of paper they know you wrote the passphrase on.
Licence has a qrcode or similar onto the DMV website.
(proper verification apps ensure that the URL is actually the DMV website and ignore any other URL)
Just be aware that that doesn't work everywhere.
You don't get emergency calls in the uk, for example.
Oh yes!
That is not hardware.
The hardware - the FPGA has remained constant.
Software runs on hardware - yes.
Software cannot increase the capabilities of hardware - well - not quite.
The most literal meaning of this - apart from limited things like overclocking is of course broadly true but may be hugely misleading.
If you've got a really advanced program on each of a network of computers, doing a given task - there are many ways in which it can seem to increase its capabilities, without really doing so.
Giving up the designated task and freeing resources.
Co-opting other systems into adding to its resource.
Optimising the way it performs the task so that it at least does it reasonably well, but much cheaper.
Sharing computations over multiple devices which were expected to be done on one.
There are many systems where 'dumb' algorithms are tens, or thousands of times less efficient than optimum ones.
Optimum algorithms are in many cases intractable for humans to find.
Optimising computational efficiency over time as machine learning is a really valuable thing to do.
Looked at from another angle, this can come quite close to 'evolution'.
However, at this stage, it is not required.
Simply as the threat is well over ten years out.
How much over - good question.
Is it too early to raise concerns and encourage people to go into fields where they may think seriously about this topic - no.
If the tax code was rational.
The problems are that multiple levels of tax code interact in complex ways that vary with the exact addresses involved in the claim.
So, you're not writing one codebase which does taxes, but in a very real sense, thousands.
The above comment is especially fun - because it varies.
Some animals you keep you have no liability over their actions, and some you do.
(in the UK)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...
For example - you are liable for the damage livestock causes to others property.
But this is only "cattle, horses, asses, mules, hinnies, sheep, pigs, goats and poultry, and also deer not in the wild state and, in sections 3 and 9, also, while in captivity, pheasants, partridges and grouse; poultry” means the domestic varieties of the following, that is to say, fowls, turkeys, geese, ducks, guinea-fowls, pigeons, peacocks and quails"
Ostriches, camels, llamas, kangaroos, cats, dogs, parrots, peacocks are not listed, so you aren't.
Unless your dog damages other peoples livestock.
If it savages a Kangaroo - no liability.
Or if your cat kills chickens.
in short - the exact legislation matters.
For added fun - this varies.
In the EU, 'sweat of brow' copyright is generally recognised - if you spent a lot of effort doing something, you may have it copyrighted - even though it is merely a collection of facts.
In the US, this is much less true.
There is no reason for much of this stuff for it to be your car.
And, indeed, it might be considerably more efficient if it wasn't.
It's a pity that seemingly devices without working flash aren't supported - some of us have adequate lighting.
You sort-of-can control the range.
In the case of a hotel - a wifi AP per room, with very low power, and another box - also set to very low power to do deauthentication attacks on the client in that room.
Each rooms 'jammer' is only active when a strong local signal tries to access the outside AP - and only has enough power to jam that room.
It would not affect people outside the hotel more than marginally - as the 'jammer' would not be recievable by them due to its low power.
No, a simple per-hotel jammer can't do this, and the above is much more expensive than such a thing.