"Johnny Depp has snapped up the rights to a book about the life and mysterious death of one-time KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko. Warner Bros shelled out on behalf of Depp's production company Infinitum Nihil. Apparently the part-time pirate has been following the story quite closely and quite fancies the starring role for himself." BBC 12th January 2007
This may be stating the obvious (and for once I'm not being ironic) but if you happen to run SiteAdvisor (as I do) and do a Google search, the relevant ratings come up as an integral part of the search results.
So, perhaps the question others have asked should be re-stated as "Why don't Google offer a site advisory service as part of their engine?" Perhaps because third-parties do so already? Google is, after all, primarily a search engine, albeit a distorted one due to proliferating sponsored links. OK, it can be argued that an advisory service would only be an extension of the filtering they already offer as an option for their searches, but surely users must ultimately bear SOME responsibility for what they do online. The less tech-savvy home users (plus the rest of us!) would be well-advised to invest in some dedicated security software which will do the job regardless. The workplace should already be covered - some of you reading this will doubtless be involved in that aspect.
Micro$oft have finally jumped in here (then again, they are now charging $STUPID for an insanely showy OS, aka bloatware, plus bells and whistles) but it doesn't mean that Google et al. are obliged to follow suit. Firefox? - all kudos to them, but ultimately it's something which should help get their browser out there.
Absolute communicable truth (not to be confused with recitation of facts) is an ideal, and as such unattainable (check the philosophy section of your bookstore). Of course, the very (re)emergence of "truthiness" suggests that in some cultures/contexts this is a really useful loophole which allows an alternative gut-level relationship to be utilised (rather conveniently) for good or ill. In the old days, when it was "on-side", this was referred to as wisdom; now it's more likely to be spin.
My favourite candidate for word of the year would be "moasting" - a combination of moaning and boasting which is all the rage at social events or workplace interactions here in the UK. Alas, as a new portmanteau word, it hasn't made it into the dictionary yet.
"Hard to handle? Nah - remember that it's not lethal unless you basically ingest it in sufficient quantity. You could put an eyedropper full of a polonium salt solution in his food when he was taking a leak and absorb maybe 1/10000 of the quantity that he got."
I'm glad that someone wrote this - not that it is wrong, but it does underline how hard it is to get to grips with the quantities involved. The implication (probably unintentional) is of waiters rushing around with bottles of polonium salt solution. This may indeed have been how this element was ultimately administered, but it's certainly not as trivial as the above would suggest, due to the extreme chemical and radiological toxicity.
Here in the UK, this story been a source of fascination for many. It's been of particular interest to those 33,000 of us who travelled on one of the contaminated planes (in my case, back from Moscow) even though the risk of contamination is essentially negligable, especially given that the planes are now in service again.
Many./ers will have done their homework, but if you aren't one of them, here goes:
'A milligram of polonium-210 emits as much alpha radiation as about 5 grams of radium, and enough gamma radiation to cause a blue glow in the air around it. Polonium has found use in small portable radiation sources and in the control of static electricity. However, it is an extremely toxic substance and must be handled with great care. Polonium was the first element to be discovered because of its radioactivity; it was discovered in pitchblende in 1898 by Marie Curie and named for her native country, Poland.
Polonium (in common with Plutonium-238) has the ability to become airborne with ease. More than one hypothesis exists for how polonium does this; one suggestion that that small clusters of polonium atoms are spalled off by the alpha decay.
The maximum allowable body burden for ingested polonium is only 1,100 becquerels (0.03 microcurie), which is equivalent to a particle weighing only 6.8 × 10-12 gram. Weight for weight, polonium is approximately 250 billion times as toxic as hydrogen cyanide. The maximum permissible concentration for airborne soluble polonium compounds is about 7,500 Bq/m3 (2 × 10-11 Ci/cm3). The biological halflife of polonium in humans is 30 to 50 days.'
It's also expensive to produce by neutron capture from a reactor , in Russia or anywhere else. It has been estimated that the amount of Po-210 used in this poisoning would cost about $20 million to make. So, any eyedropper would have contained an extremely dilute solution. It would still be a risky business, since such small quantities are needed and the killer(s) used a relatively massive dose (according to the post-mortem).
What's interesting to me is the way the media have mangled the story ("Geiger counters cannot be used to detect alpha-particles", for example, in the Guardian and then put on to the BBC website). Most of the public have, sadly, no idea what's scientifically plausible and many of those who have rung official sources for health advice seem to have had no joy there either.
At the same time, we do have the expertise (at the AWRE in Berkshire) to determine the source of the polonium from its isotopic spread. (I visited there once, whilst working with neutron-irradiation: very interesting place).
As for the politics - when did any Government let the facts get in the way of a good deal (for them)? Even in my own working life, insistence on the data hasn't done me any favours - and most of that was in science!
Well, amongst technical folk, I thought the term was cracker.
I would have looked it up on Wikipedia (perhaps even something clever like "Hacker Technical Controversy") but I've heard that this source is considered inherently unreliable by some. As a non-expert, I wasn't impressed and so I'm still none the wiser.
I've just come back from Korolev (aka Space City) as a paying guest of Energia Corporation. I was there with some 17-18 year olds for the "Space Olympics", an annual international event where the Russians are trying very hard to enthuse the next generation about Space Exploration in general. At the same time, they are making shed-loads of money out of their "guests": very New Russia.
Having met five cosmonauts (4 active; 1 retired) on this trip, it's my impression that they are all still struggling to some extent to come to terms with life in modern Russia. Mostly in their late 40's or early 50's, they seemed tired and somewhat cynical, or even bored with the endless PR. Many of the technical support people have baled out, either to administrative jobs within the same sector or elsewhere completely. There was a definite "Soviet" feel to the trip, as our Russian hosts have not made a complete psychological transition from the old ways when they were truly elite. For example, we were not permitted to visit any working churches (e.g. St Basil's in Red Square) and they kept driving us round and round Moscow to ensure that we ran out of time rather than allow this visit. Lenin's mausoleum was, naturally, "highly recommended" (i.e. mandatory).
Even so, most of those in Space City proper (which strictly is a separate part of the much bigger city of Korolev) are still an elite by Russian standards. They have bigger apartments - twice the average floorspace - and much better shops. The best schools (e.g. Lyceum No. 11) are eye-opening for someone from the UK educational system. Although not amazingly lavish in terms of resources (although still good), the attainment of their top students is awesome. Their performance in science, mathematics, foreign languages and performing arts was extremely impressive.
On the other hand, traffic is utterly chaotic, the food was mostly appalling and their organisation (general, rather than specialist) was quite poor. Medical care was surprisingly cursory (I fell ill during the visit) and they certainly don't trust the banking system - I had to go to the airport exchange booths in the middle of the night to cash travellers' cheques to pay them in CASH for our visit. (Very unsettling for someone from the West!)
There are certainly enough technically-minded young Russians (and Kazakhstanis) around to keep the system supplied with cosmonauts - at least within a few years' time. They currently fund specialist scholarships to Moscow State University and have a range of other incentives. Crucially, they are all still very proud of their long legacy of cosmonautics (edited for deaths and maimings, inevitably) and it was a real thrill even for me to be able to physically grab hold of Yuri Gagarin's re-entry capsule, which is displayed with loads of other hardware in Energia's museum.
Then again, when the Russo-American-European ISS has become the world's highest advertising platform with this recent golf-drive stunt, who can really be sure what the future holds for science and scientists? When I trained 30 years ago, I never really expected to end up teaching young adults, even when moving towards the sunset of my working life.
Vacuum tubes have already been mentioned, since they pass electrons (of sufficient energy) but can easily be designed to have little thermal transfer to the collector (because a suitable shiny metallic surface will be a bad emitter). They may not be a useful engineering concept in this context, though, for the reasons already given concerning their efficiency for this application. Oh, and don't forget the bias if you want to collect a useful number of electrons.
Also, if a significant number of electrons do manage to "plonk" themselves onto the collector, they will eventually heat it up. Even if it's a good radiator, it may still need additional cooling.
My (limited) experience of start-up companies is that they are always economical with the truth (but not with their promises) and never deliver what they promise in the specified timescale. Rather like many much bigger hi-tech companies...
I'll be in Athens (briefly) next week, so I'll let you know if I come across any of these critters; or they me.
Here in the UK, one of my colleagues was recently bitten by a horsefly (in Wales) and had to be hospitalised to control the subsequent allergic reaction. She has always been OK in the past - anecdotal evidence that Welsh horseflies are evolving into horse-superflies?
Now a lot of people say that one shouldn't do science just for the money, a fine sentiment. However, you're not allowed to say we're coming up "short" in science education when salaries seem to indicate that there are *too many* scientists in many areas(assuming you think scientist's salaries should be higher than they are).
I have wrestled with this (as an ex-scientist in the UK) as well. The simple answer is that pay is set at the level which will attract some scientists to do the job. Since some/many of us are not primarily motivated by money, we take the jobs at an almost subsistence level. Those who desire "big bucks" go elsewhere. The gulf between the two groups is such that SALARIES DO NOT GO UP SIGNIFICANTLY in Science. Given the prevalent short-termism in our society it is simpler, and apparently more cost-effective, to leave the jobs unfilled. In an emergency, the relevant technology can be licensed from a third-party, using work that has generally been done abroad. As an alternative, the basic work itself can quite easily be outsourced (since many "managers" fail to recognise the importance of consistency in building-up both personal expertise and synergic teams).
So, we really have a shortage of scientists WHO ARE PREPARED TO WORK ON SHORT-TERM CONTRACTS FOR ALMOST NOTHING. No change there, except that in the "old days" this was made into a badge of honour and fooled quite a few people, who often believed they were making the world a better place.
I have long called science "The New Monasticism" for this very reason. I now teach physics in the UK equivalent of (selective) School but am very wary of giving specific careers advice.
The cost of electrifying a rail line is prohibitive
Expensive, yes, but it's ultimately a question of financial priorities, not technology. The Japanese are choosing to 'push the envelope' on the tracks, but the technology may ultimately be exported to other types of transport (terrestrial flying excluded for now!)
Whilst the Dollar/Euro/Pound/Yen remains the only criterion, we will continue to trash the planet very efficiently, because we just can't see the wood for the trees...
If you're in it for the money, go sell real estate; please.
This was my view when I was about 15 and considering my future career. I viewed it then as the 'new monasticism' and went into hard science because I was passionate about it and thought that the poor terms and conditions would keep out the less dedicated.
Much later, I finally became permanently irritated by the way we are taken for granted and by the way that Joe Public has NO CONCEPT of how difficult true innovation is. Not to mention constantly 'making do' with a lower standard of living than my peers (or even intellectual inferiors).
Now I teach - the money's about the same, it's actually more fun day-to-day (!) and (at least here in the UK) a much more stable career long-term. It means I get to have my say with Joe Public's children, too. Of course, I'm rather wary about giving careers advice...
Nuclear pressure vessels are a demanding art form (which is the black art needed until you can fully nail down the science). Radiation embrittlement is caused by (mainly) energetic neutrons displacing metal atoms from their lattice positions. In this sense, it mimics the effects of stress in metals. Since most commercial metal vessels are not single crystals (although they have directionality from the production techniques applied to them) predicting the exact point of crack nucleation will be something of a challenge. The effects of nuclear transmutation ultimately lead to significant numbers of atoms of different radii in the lattice - like adding carbon to pure iron and so changing the mechanical properties radically.
Glasses are a whole arcane art form - there are models out there to explain their behaviour, but they seem to be more an exercise in curve-fitting than 100% grounded in materials science.
Polymers are a bit easier, since they are usually significantly crytalline (and have diffraction patterns to prove it), but they tend to be most amenable to experimental methods e.g. viewing stress patterns by using cross-polarisation.
I do all my own plumbing (having learned vacuum engineering) and electrics (except the real grunt work). I even believe in single-crystal copper loudspeaker cables for my hi-fi!
He's a lawyer, so he probably believes that he doesn't need any relevant experience, certainly not the geek-management kind.
To be fair, he's probably more at home in the top echelons of NASA than geeks; especially given the latter's inherent tendency (augmented by their training and sometimes subsumed by autistic-spectrum tendencies) to use both data and logical reasoning before reaching a decision.
Indeed - the 'participants' were carefully chosen for their social conformity and suggestibility. This is in contradistinction to nerds like me, who are more likely to be verging on the asocial. It's strange to watch people who don't really seem to process any physical or sensory data; although the capsule's sound system is probably highly convincing, the remainder of the illusion seems unbelievably amateurish. All this, of course, without even getting into the physics. Still, it rather looks as if one, or perhaps two, of the three 'marks' may have 'better' (certainly more lucrative) jobs than mine. A strong technical background is not highly regarded here in the UK, so most viewers won't be outraged at the lack of scientific savvy shown throughout the 'mission'. Overall, an unsurprisingly unedifying experience. Bring back the Star Trek re-runs, please!
Slashdot Mirror
>
There are bigger plans afoot...
"Johnny Depp has snapped up the rights to a book about the life and mysterious death of one-time KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko. Warner Bros shelled out on behalf of Depp's production company Infinitum Nihil. Apparently the part-time pirate has been following the story quite closely and quite fancies the starring role for himself." BBC 12th January 2007
This may be stating the obvious (and for once I'm not being ironic) but if you happen to run SiteAdvisor (as I do) and do a Google search, the relevant ratings come up as an integral part of the search results.
So, perhaps the question others have asked should be re-stated as "Why don't Google offer a site advisory service as part of their engine?" Perhaps because third-parties do so already? Google is, after all, primarily a search engine, albeit a distorted one due to proliferating sponsored links. OK, it can be argued that an advisory service would only be an extension of the filtering they already offer as an option for their searches, but surely users must ultimately bear SOME responsibility for what they do online. The less tech-savvy home users (plus the rest of us!) would be well-advised to invest in some dedicated security software which will do the job regardless. The workplace should already be covered - some of you reading this will doubtless be involved in that aspect.
Micro$oft have finally jumped in here (then again, they are now charging $STUPID for an insanely showy OS, aka bloatware, plus bells and whistles) but it doesn't mean that Google et al. are obliged to follow suit. Firefox? - all kudos to them, but ultimately it's something which should help get their browser out there.
Just one long-time user's view.
Absolute communicable truth (not to be confused with recitation of facts) is an ideal, and as such unattainable (check the philosophy section of your bookstore). Of course, the very (re)emergence of "truthiness" suggests that in some cultures/contexts this is a really useful loophole which allows an alternative gut-level relationship to be utilised (rather conveniently) for good or ill. In the old days, when it was "on-side", this was referred to as wisdom; now it's more likely to be spin.
My favourite candidate for word of the year would be "moasting" - a combination of moaning and boasting which is all the rage at social events or workplace interactions here in the UK. Alas, as a new portmanteau word, it hasn't made it into the dictionary yet.
"Hard to handle? Nah - remember that it's not lethal unless you basically ingest it in sufficient quantity. You could put an eyedropper full of a polonium salt solution in his food when he was taking a leak and absorb maybe 1/10000 of the quantity that he got."
./ers will have done their homework, but if you aren't one of them, here goes:
I'm glad that someone wrote this - not that it is wrong, but it does underline how hard it is to get to grips with the quantities involved. The implication (probably unintentional) is of waiters rushing around with bottles of polonium salt solution. This may indeed have been how this element was ultimately administered, but it's certainly not as trivial as the above would suggest, due to the extreme chemical and radiological toxicity.
Here in the UK, this story been a source of fascination for many. It's been of particular interest to those 33,000 of us who travelled on one of the contaminated planes (in my case, back from Moscow) even though the risk of contamination is essentially negligable, especially given that the planes are now in service again.
Many
'A milligram of polonium-210 emits as much alpha radiation as about 5 grams of radium, and enough gamma radiation to cause a blue glow in the air around it. Polonium has found use in small portable radiation sources and in the control of static electricity. However, it is an extremely toxic substance and must be handled with great care. Polonium was the first element to be discovered because of its radioactivity; it was discovered in pitchblende in 1898 by Marie Curie and named for her native country, Poland.
Polonium (in common with Plutonium-238) has the ability to become airborne with ease. More than one hypothesis exists for how polonium does this; one suggestion that that small clusters of polonium atoms are spalled off by the alpha decay.
The maximum allowable body burden for ingested polonium is only 1,100 becquerels (0.03 microcurie), which is equivalent to a particle weighing only 6.8 × 10-12 gram. Weight for weight, polonium is approximately 250 billion times as toxic as hydrogen cyanide. The maximum permissible concentration for airborne soluble polonium compounds is about 7,500 Bq/m3 (2 × 10-11 Ci/cm3). The biological halflife of polonium in humans is 30 to 50 days.'
It's also expensive to produce by neutron capture from a reactor , in Russia or anywhere else. It has been estimated that the amount of Po-210 used in this poisoning would cost about $20 million to make. So, any eyedropper would have contained an extremely dilute solution. It would still be a risky business, since such small quantities are needed and the killer(s) used a relatively massive dose (according to the post-mortem).
What's interesting to me is the way the media have mangled the story ("Geiger counters cannot be used to detect alpha-particles", for example, in the Guardian and then put on to the BBC website). Most of the public have, sadly, no idea what's scientifically plausible and many of those who have rung official sources for health advice seem to have had no joy there either.
At the same time, we do have the expertise (at the AWRE in Berkshire) to determine the source of the polonium from its isotopic spread. (I visited there once, whilst working with neutron-irradiation: very interesting place).
As for the politics - when did any Government let the facts get in the way of a good deal (for them)? Even in my own working life, insistence on the data hasn't done me any favours - and most of that was in science!
Well, amongst technical folk, I thought the term was cracker.
I would have looked it up on Wikipedia (perhaps even something clever like "Hacker Technical Controversy") but I've heard that this source is considered inherently unreliable by some. As a non-expert, I wasn't impressed and so I'm still none the wiser.
Time for cheese and crackers (here in the UK).
I've just come back from Korolev (aka Space City) as a paying guest of Energia Corporation. I was there with some 17-18 year olds for the "Space Olympics", an annual international event where the Russians are trying very hard to enthuse the next generation about Space Exploration in general. At the same time, they are making shed-loads of money out of their "guests": very New Russia.
Having met five cosmonauts (4 active; 1 retired) on this trip, it's my impression that they are all still struggling to some extent to come to terms with life in modern Russia. Mostly in their late 40's or early 50's, they seemed tired and somewhat cynical, or even bored with the endless PR. Many of the technical support people have baled out, either to administrative jobs within the same sector or elsewhere completely. There was a definite "Soviet" feel to the trip, as our Russian hosts have not made a complete psychological transition from the old ways when they were truly elite. For example, we were not permitted to visit any working churches (e.g. St Basil's in Red Square) and they kept driving us round and round Moscow to ensure that we ran out of time rather than allow this visit. Lenin's mausoleum was, naturally, "highly recommended" (i.e. mandatory).
Even so, most of those in Space City proper (which strictly is a separate part of the much bigger city of Korolev) are still an elite by Russian standards. They have bigger apartments - twice the average floorspace - and much better shops. The best schools (e.g. Lyceum No. 11) are eye-opening for someone from the UK educational system. Although not amazingly lavish in terms of resources (although still good), the attainment of their top students is awesome. Their performance in science, mathematics, foreign languages and performing arts was extremely impressive.
On the other hand, traffic is utterly chaotic, the food was mostly appalling and their organisation (general, rather than specialist) was quite poor. Medical care was surprisingly cursory (I fell ill during the visit) and they certainly don't trust the banking system - I had to go to the airport exchange booths in the middle of the night to cash travellers' cheques to pay them in CASH for our visit. (Very unsettling for someone from the West!)
There are certainly enough technically-minded young Russians (and Kazakhstanis) around to keep the system supplied with cosmonauts - at least within a few years' time. They currently fund specialist scholarships to Moscow State University and have a range of other incentives. Crucially, they are all still very proud of their long legacy of cosmonautics (edited for deaths and maimings, inevitably) and it was a real thrill even for me to be able to physically grab hold of Yuri Gagarin's re-entry capsule, which is displayed with loads of other hardware in Energia's museum.
Then again, when the Russo-American-European ISS has become the world's highest advertising platform with this recent golf-drive stunt, who can really be sure what the future holds for science and scientists? When I trained 30 years ago, I never really expected to end up teaching young adults, even when moving towards the sunset of my working life.
Just a couple of very basic observations:
Vacuum tubes have already been mentioned, since they pass electrons (of sufficient energy) but can easily be designed to have little thermal transfer to the collector (because a suitable shiny metallic surface will be a bad emitter). They may not be a useful engineering concept in this context, though, for the reasons already given concerning their efficiency for this application. Oh, and don't forget the bias if you want to collect a useful number of electrons.
Also, if a significant number of electrons do manage to "plonk" themselves onto the collector, they will eventually heat it up. Even if it's a good radiator, it may still need additional cooling.
My (limited) experience of start-up companies is that they are always economical with the truth (but not with their promises) and never deliver what they promise in the specified timescale. Rather like many much bigger hi-tech companies...
I'll be in Athens (briefly) next week, so I'll let you know if I come across any of these critters; or they me.
Here in the UK, one of my colleagues was recently bitten by a horsefly (in Wales) and had to be hospitalised to control the subsequent allergic reaction. She has always been OK in the past - anecdotal evidence that Welsh horseflies are evolving into horse-superflies?
Now a lot of people say that one shouldn't do science just for the money, a fine sentiment. However, you're not allowed to say we're coming up "short" in science education when salaries seem to indicate that there are *too many* scientists in many areas(assuming you think scientist's salaries should be higher than they are).
I have wrestled with this (as an ex-scientist in the UK) as well. The simple answer is that pay is set at the level which will attract some scientists to do the job. Since some/many of us are not primarily motivated by money, we take the jobs at an almost subsistence level. Those who desire "big bucks" go elsewhere. The gulf between the two groups is such that SALARIES DO NOT GO UP SIGNIFICANTLY in Science. Given the prevalent short-termism in our society it is simpler, and apparently more cost-effective, to leave the jobs unfilled. In an emergency, the relevant technology can be licensed from a third-party, using work that has generally been done abroad. As an alternative, the basic work itself can quite easily be outsourced (since many "managers" fail to recognise the importance of consistency in building-up both personal expertise and synergic teams).
So, we really have a shortage of scientists WHO ARE PREPARED TO WORK ON SHORT-TERM CONTRACTS FOR ALMOST NOTHING. No change there, except that in the "old days" this was made into a badge of honour and fooled quite a few people, who often believed they were making the world a better place.
I have long called science "The New Monasticism" for this very reason. I now teach physics in the UK equivalent of (selective) School but am very wary of giving specific careers advice.
The cost of electrifying a rail line is prohibitive
Expensive, yes, but it's ultimately a question of financial priorities, not technology. The Japanese are choosing to 'push the envelope' on the tracks, but the technology may ultimately be exported to other types of transport (terrestrial flying excluded for now!)
Whilst the Dollar/Euro/Pound/Yen remains the only criterion, we will continue to trash the planet very efficiently, because we just can't see the wood for the trees...
If you're in it for the money, go sell real estate; please.
This was my view when I was about 15 and considering my future career. I viewed it then as the 'new monasticism' and went into hard science because I was passionate about it and thought that the poor terms and conditions would keep out the less dedicated.
Much later, I finally became permanently irritated by the way we are taken for granted and by the way that Joe Public has NO CONCEPT of how difficult true innovation is. Not to mention constantly 'making do' with a lower standard of living than my peers (or even intellectual inferiors).
Now I teach - the money's about the same, it's actually more fun day-to-day (!) and (at least here in the UK) a much more stable career long-term. It means I get to have my say with Joe Public's children, too. Of course, I'm rather wary about giving careers advice...
Materials 101 (experts please skip post):
Nuclear pressure vessels are a demanding art form (which is the black art needed until you can fully nail down the science). Radiation embrittlement is caused by (mainly) energetic neutrons displacing metal atoms from their lattice positions. In this sense, it mimics the effects of stress in metals. Since most commercial metal vessels are not single crystals (although they have directionality from the production techniques applied to them) predicting the exact point of crack nucleation will be something of a challenge. The effects of nuclear transmutation ultimately lead to significant numbers of atoms of different radii in the lattice - like adding carbon to pure iron and so changing the mechanical properties radically.
Glasses are a whole arcane art form - there are models out there to explain their behaviour, but they seem to be more an exercise in curve-fitting than 100% grounded in materials science.
Polymers are a bit easier, since they are usually significantly crytalline (and have diffraction patterns to prove it), but they tend to be most amenable to experimental methods e.g. viewing stress patterns by using cross-polarisation.
I do all my own plumbing (having learned vacuum engineering) and electrics (except the real grunt work). I even believe in single-crystal copper loudspeaker cables for my hi-fi!
He's a lawyer, so he probably believes that he doesn't need any relevant experience, certainly not the geek-management kind.
To be fair, he's probably more at home in the top echelons of NASA than geeks; especially given the latter's inherent tendency (augmented by their training and sometimes subsumed by autistic-spectrum tendencies) to use both data and logical reasoning before reaching a decision.
Just a comment on the moderation, really. As a newbie, I'm surprised /.ers went for "flamebait" when it so obviously isn't!
As a newbie...I can't meta-moderate, either.
EGG ROW - BE US H? (Anagram of 'George W Bush', with 'H' representing Homo)
Indeed - the 'participants' were carefully chosen for their social conformity and suggestibility. This is in contradistinction to nerds like me, who are more likely to be verging on the asocial. It's strange to watch people who don't really seem to process any physical or sensory data; although the capsule's sound system is probably highly convincing, the remainder of the illusion seems unbelievably amateurish. All this, of course, without even getting into the physics.
Still, it rather looks as if one, or perhaps two, of the three 'marks' may have 'better' (certainly more lucrative) jobs than mine. A strong technical background is not highly regarded here in the UK, so most viewers won't be outraged at the lack of scientific savvy shown throughout the 'mission'.
Overall, an unsurprisingly unedifying experience. Bring back the Star Trek re-runs, please!