I'm a bit confused on this point (only tangentially related): I think that it is the Coulomb force which determines the arrangement of the dots, so are we actually talking about electromagnetic fields, or merely electrostatic/magnetostatic fields? This matters as the former implies a considerable delay, but a generality in terms of the computational model, whereas the latter implies negligible delay. VLSI was founded on the latter for simplicity, but naturally has had to work in the former for a while now (since we can't create small enough chips).
It would be a shame if they threw away all of VLSI, as it's not just a digital world -- all of our nice wireless devices require some kind of analog layout, since most of modern communications are based around the concept of wave (not particle) models. QCA definitely sounds interesting, but it's hardly the first attempt at reversible computing. As for Intel: the company is simply benefiting from those marvelous fabs and all of its consortium connections. I suspect that VLSI is going to be with us for a bit more time, especially with the advent of metamaterial-based optical circuits.
So by "population sustainability," you mean not sustainable at all? Sustainable would be replacement rate, but that ain't the case. The rich and/or educated generally don't have enough children to replace themselves. There's no overpopulation thing going on there and if you look at especially decadent places like Europe or the United States, immigration is the only source of population growth. Our social security models in the West are based on the idea that there are more young than old, more workers than retirees -- what are we going to do when the situation is reversed? Nothing, I contend. We'll just invite more immigrants from the comfort of our old-age homes.
Like other posters have noted, the last few hundred years have seen a population explosion because of the industrial revolution, not because of cheap oil. And as for your estimate that in the last hundred years, the poor have gotten past "cultural brainwashing like military 'service',...", it seems to only point to your ignorance of history: remember the three major wars of the twentieth century? Ya know, the ones which killed millions upon millions of people, displaced millions more, and crafted the world political landscape where there is a sole superpower? Throughout all of that crap, only the poor survived; don't overestimate your own survival chances when history bears witness to the fact that the poor own the world and the rest of us just live here.
Seems a little silly for me to be (apparently) the only one to notice this, but is it a big deal that you can't sync wirelessly with your computer. Compared to USB2 and Firewire, 802.11g is pathetic speed-wise. Ever try copying a bunch of files onto one of those old USB1 flash drives? Impossibly slow. Wireless (at least in its current popular implementation) is too slow to do full syncs. A song or two is fine and amazingly convenient, but don't think that you can suddenly transfer gigabytes in seconds. The device would run out of power even if you had sufficient patience. Don't hold your breath on Apple somehow magically inventing new wireless technologies, much less new wireless standards.
This whole solution requires that people decide the big things using reason every time. It requires people to be reasonable, which I don't believe is true. Some of the best murderers of the last century were highly educated people: don't rely upon mere knowledge to solve the big problems, but rather figure out a way to impart wisdom. WIthout wisdom, things like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and oh yeah, the genocide in Darfur (killed more people than all those nice wars) happen. For all the bad things about the West, it is important to remember that its philosophical heritage is about reason (perhaps too much at times), not tradition. The rest of the world, from my POV, has a problem with that.
If you've ever tried installing Google Earth on OS X, they have the same restriction: you have to be logged in as an admin before installing the program. The workaround? Either use an admin account or modify the package installer to prompt for a password. Darn silly stuff and ignorant developers make for difficult security for users.
You know a pretty neat myth that has absolutely no way of being tested? Causality. But like other people here have commented, a myth is simply a way to explain a story. The details don't always have to be right, but the greater truth is the most significant aspect. Ya know, like causality.
Didn't you notice?... it's already a little different. There were a few UI changes already, including more plain metal, rather than brushed look, in the title bars.
Ya know, the big bang really has to do with this problem of a universe in which the distances between things has been changing. But imagine, for a moment, that gravity keeps things nice and causal. That time is bundled up in places with matter (and therefore gravity, kinda like how electric fields get concentrated in dielectrics), but otherwise is free to diminish (since if there are a finite number of "things", not necessary matter, responsible for time, then they would likely be preserved). That is to say that the way we measure distance is intimately tied into time, since we measure moving things with "known" speeds. If we assume that light travels at some constant (either just now, or since the beginning), then the evidence of the big bang suggests that the universe is expanding. If time is simply dilating, then the speed of light is not constant far from other bits of mass (ignoring the obvious objection that E=mc^2 and what is light but energy), but if we assume the speed of light to be constant, then it also appears as though the universe expands into nothingness.
Why the weird (and likely incorrect) alternate theory? I don't think science is allowed to say that any measurement's implications are true by definition. That is, the idea that the universe expands into nothingness (simply by definition of the universe) doesn't seem justified at all. The very definition of the universe prevents scientists from ever knowing if this interpretation is correct. Based off the mostly healthy skepticism of science towards other pieces of evidence and other human enterprises, I find it surprising for them to produce a hypothesis which is impossible to test.
I understand the desire to explain the mystery of the evidence before us, but to create a question whose answer is epistemologically impossible seems to be worse than the mystery itself. Nothingness is the very opposite of knowledge, of evidence. All that we know is that the perceived distances are getting bigger. Is that because space expands, the speed of light is variable, or that time is more complex than previously imagined? I dunno... there's not much to d=r*t and it's one of these variables (I know, a big, oversimplification of cosmology).
Since this is so weird (and likely offtopic) already, I'll just make a note to myself: 3 options: (1) d(t) = r*t (2) d = r(t)*t (3) d = r*t(d)
What's also interesting here is that the big 3 search engines (i.e. the things that most consumers would simply label as 'THE internet') are going to create a definition for clicks and possibly some shared base technology. It doesn't really matter how good or bad that definition or technology actually is, since together these 3 are basically the only show in town. They each retain their own differentiation and usage characteristics, but unless the definition or tech aren't that good, advertisers will have to decide whether or not they want to advertise with search engines period. They may not have that nice capability to vote with their dollars, since from the standpoint of click fraud, all three might just be at the same risk level. You know, something like the oil cartels (I know, very different proportions, but still illustrates legal collusion).
If anyone here is familiar with the concept of waveguides or merely transmission lines, then you should think of this concept as a dense collection of light-guides. There have been various suggestions as to how to create optical circuits (the familiar capacitor, inductor, resistor, but at optical frequencies) and they seem to always revolve around metamaterials (materials which have a negative refractive index, in some cases). Nanospheres constructed out of metamaterials can be used to construct optical transmission lines. Confinement is impossibly good, but I'd imagine they still have the problem of how to couple light into the waveguide. With standard techniques and materials, one could use an antenna at sub-optical frequencies, but I'm not so sure about the existence of metamaterial-based antennas, especially operating at optical frequencies. Of course, since it's optical, one could instead opt for a metamaterial-based lens (capable of focusing past the diffraction limit). The real trick to making an invisibility cloak is not necessarily some intrinsic delay (which, in this case, would not exhibit a refraction problem a la the Predator's cloak), but being able to couple all the light to the optical waveguides. That means the lenses or antennas need to be perfectly matched (in terms of group velocity) to air; otherwise, some reflections would result and you would see it as a small reflection. Primitive versions of these cloaks would need to still take advantage of dark places, rather than to be in direct light where the cloak would likely be somewhat visible (though its occupant would remain masked by the cloak).
In all likelihood, unless they can get it to perfectly match group velocities across the air/coupling apparatus interface, you will always see a small sheen to the cloak, kind of like a highly polished piece of glass (nearly invisible, but not quite).
This is of great interest not simply to physicists, but to electromagnetic engineers.
I think it's interesting that when a genetic basis for behavior X is discovered, it is regarded as a disease or "condition." Why is it not chocked up to the mysterious concept of personality? Or culture? Why exactly is this something to be cured or diagnosed? Perhaps this is how that altogether strange concept of microevolution works. Some folks just gotta be discoverers and adventurers.
Yes, changing the length of the signal path does make a difference, but typically, computers process stuff at relatively low (compared to light) frequencies, implying that only a small performance benefit will be obtained by shortening signal paths. The biggest limitation to speed are the switching times of the transistors. Once you get down to the point where changing signal path length provides the best performance increase of all possible changes to the technology, you're hitting the physical (electromagnetic) limit of that material.
Perhaps a more interesting method would be to factor out the transformer loss, especially while the device is "off." It is possible that some of the manufacturers are using less efficient (and therefore, presumably cheaper) power bricks, especially if you wanna sell the device at a loss (XBox, XBox360, PS2). While that doesn't really affect the bottom line results (i.e., if I plug in this console and let it just sit there, it will consume $x), it could be more indicative of the quality of the core product and not the peripheral electronics.
Free from guilt and fear? Free from delusions? Free to do only good? Free from corporations and politicians? Sorry bud, you're human, so you're still under all the normal constraints. And which is it: agnostic or atheist? World of difference in there.
A Roman Catholic (in addition to other sects of catholicism like Anglicans, Episcopalians, and SSPX-ers) at least recognize that folks have a hard time forgiving themselves, so they specifically have confessionals. Martin Luther, a Catholic priest, still couldn't deal with it and began the Reformation.
Now that I've pointed out the your splinter, I better attend to the board in my eye.
I disagree. I think this is a simple case of a man who decided to disregard the fact that he was turned down an audience with the prime minister. The head of state. The guy with a million-plus things to do. The result is obvious. Nothing at all was demonstrated except this man's simple ignorance.
Assume for a moment that RMS decided to visit StateA to talk with its PM. As a citizen of StateA, I want the government and its officials to be doing things for me. That's why I elect them. If a guy comes to the PM's door asking for an audience with the PM, I would expect the PM to only grant an audience if this man gave a good argument for how StateA could benefit from said audience. Nothing wrong with that, since the PM is supposed to serve the country! Does this discriminate against the little guy? Absolutely! How can the PM know if that little guy is some nutjob claiming support from millions of StateA's citizens? If StateA is a republic, then maybe convincing one of the theoretically less busy representatives that your cause is worth spending public money would be a better, more appropriate route. The PM is not there to answer every idiot's questions and that has nothing to do with Gates or RMS: it just isn't his job. G
Gates represents something unique, as do all large company leaders: they command large sections of the economy. They really do represent something potentially good for StateA (notice the word 'potentially'). Makes sense why Gates easily obtains an audience while RMS doesn't: RMS failed to provide an argument for why France would benefit (and hence, why the citizens of France should pay the PM to talk with RMS).
There is no conspiracy required between the big companies and the government to make sense of this case. It's just how the government is supposed to work (at least in a republic, and note that I said republic and democracy).
Still, you have to wonder if the power companies would change their rates. After all, only if everyone had the same huge caps connected to the grid would it be possible to redesign the grid to handle such reactive loads. As it is, power companies charge some businesses differently when their reactive load is too high (i.e. wasted reflected power over the wire back to the power company). You would need an impedance transformer to otherwise be installed in everyone's home, increasing the cost, weight and waste. But hey, that's only necessary if you wanna be able to charge the thing quickly.
So what you're saying is that you believe a culture created by military and corporate America in the last fifty years is, in fact, superior or at least different than what the West has had for millennia?
How about this one instead: why don't the Japanese enthusiastically embrace Western culture, including all the conservative angles? Not so enthusiastic there, huh? Relativism, in any form, is the most tyrannical form of an ethical system in existence. Every one is supposedly free under it, but as soon as someone says, "No, I like this form and not that one," then the person/group is labeled as intolerant or perhaps even dangerous and it is dealt with accordingly.
Finally, there's this argument: the Japanese, as a nation, are dying. The population continues to age as the birth rate continues to be below replacement. The children often do not return to take care of their elders and many decide to leave the country, presumably for the better quality of life outside. The education system is cutthroat (resembling something of a caste system), further discouraging potential parents because of the required time and monetary input, especially since it won't pay off (no old-age care from the kids, just the social workers and robots).
Indeed, if it is not already obvious, the Cold War has produced real consequences, even if a shot was never fired between the United States and the Soviet Union. Before that war began, the United States did not have such an extensive history of overthrowing regimes.
Perhaps it's just my own ignorance as a physical engineer, but aren't computer scientists supposed to be scientists? As in, figuring the best way to compute stuff? As in, a computer scientist doesn't equal a programmer? I thought that was what a software engineer does.
But you should also understand that coincidence is all that you've got. No such thing as "proof" in the real world. Simply a high level of coincidence (i.e. correlation) between two events. The reason why the OP was trying to connect the dots is the same reason why people HAVE to believe in causality. I don't think anyone could honestly state that he/she wouldn't wonder WHY something strange is happening (like a random floating object on Earth... an apparent violation of the known laws of physics). The fact that numerous people have the same anedoctal story regarding cell phones and cancer is certainly interesting, but certainly not proof. Neither are thousands of tests regarding a single aspect of the universe performed by scientists in lab coats -- the priests of truth, as popular opinion would have us understand it.
Furthermore, your quip about microwave ovens not causing sterlity is an interesting, but flawed comparison. One device (the cell) is designed to radiate. The other device (the oven) is not designed to radiate. Very big difference, as an oven that radiates into free space is far less efficient (aside from the health issues) than an oven that basically contains its energy within the cavity.
The FDA should definitely check this thing out (which you know, is what peer review is all about) as it goes against the grain, but it certainly is important that there is no such thing as a proof of truth in reality; the best we can ever do is establish correlations between measurements and point out lies.
The iPod reference is completely misleading, as simple harmonic analysis is way bigger than just an iPod. It's merely talking about this guy proving that Fourier was basically right, validating harmonic analysis and expanding the horizons for signal processing. That's the biggie: signal processing, not the bloody iPod. The stupid article probably includes iPod just for the sake of hits.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a bit confused on this point (only tangentially related): I think that it is the Coulomb force which determines the arrangement of the dots, so are we actually talking about electromagnetic fields, or merely electrostatic/magnetostatic fields? This matters as the former implies a considerable delay, but a generality in terms of the computational model, whereas the latter implies negligible delay. VLSI was founded on the latter for simplicity, but naturally has had to work in the former for a while now (since we can't create small enough chips).
Merely check out Apple's documentation on this: http://images.apple.com/server/pdfs/Smart_Card_Set up_Guide.pdf
It would be a shame if they threw away all of VLSI, as it's not just a digital world -- all of our nice wireless devices require some kind of analog layout, since most of modern communications are based around the concept of wave (not particle) models. QCA definitely sounds interesting, but it's hardly the first attempt at reversible computing. As for Intel: the company is simply benefiting from those marvelous fabs and all of its consortium connections. I suspect that VLSI is going to be with us for a bit more time, especially with the advent of metamaterial-based optical circuits.
So by "population sustainability," you mean not sustainable at all? Sustainable would be replacement rate, but that ain't the case. The rich and/or educated generally don't have enough children to replace themselves. There's no overpopulation thing going on there and if you look at especially decadent places like Europe or the United States, immigration is the only source of population growth. Our social security models in the West are based on the idea that there are more young than old, more workers than retirees -- what are we going to do when the situation is reversed? Nothing, I contend. We'll just invite more immigrants from the comfort of our old-age homes.
...", it seems to only point to your ignorance of history: remember the three major wars of the twentieth century? Ya know, the ones which killed millions upon millions of people, displaced millions more, and crafted the world political landscape where there is a sole superpower? Throughout all of that crap, only the poor survived; don't overestimate your own survival chances when history bears witness to the fact that the poor own the world and the rest of us just live here.
Like other posters have noted, the last few hundred years have seen a population explosion because of the industrial revolution, not because of cheap oil. And as for your estimate that in the last hundred years, the poor have gotten past "cultural brainwashing like military 'service',
Seems a little silly for me to be (apparently) the only one to notice this, but is it a big deal that you can't sync wirelessly with your computer. Compared to USB2 and Firewire, 802.11g is pathetic speed-wise. Ever try copying a bunch of files onto one of those old USB1 flash drives? Impossibly slow. Wireless (at least in its current popular implementation) is too slow to do full syncs. A song or two is fine and amazingly convenient, but don't think that you can suddenly transfer gigabytes in seconds. The device would run out of power even if you had sufficient patience. Don't hold your breath on Apple somehow magically inventing new wireless technologies, much less new wireless standards.
This whole solution requires that people decide the big things using reason every time. It requires people to be reasonable, which I don't believe is true. Some of the best murderers of the last century were highly educated people: don't rely upon mere knowledge to solve the big problems, but rather figure out a way to impart wisdom. WIthout wisdom, things like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and oh yeah, the genocide in Darfur (killed more people than all those nice wars) happen. For all the bad things about the West, it is important to remember that its philosophical heritage is about reason (perhaps too much at times), not tradition. The rest of the world, from my POV, has a problem with that.
If you've ever tried installing Google Earth on OS X, they have the same restriction: you have to be logged in as an admin before installing the program. The workaround? Either use an admin account or modify the package installer to prompt for a password. Darn silly stuff and ignorant developers make for difficult security for users.
You know a pretty neat myth that has absolutely no way of being tested? Causality. But like other people here have commented, a myth is simply a way to explain a story. The details don't always have to be right, but the greater truth is the most significant aspect. Ya know, like causality.
Didn't you notice? ... it's already a little different. There were a few UI changes already, including more plain metal, rather than brushed look, in the title bars.
Ya know, the big bang really has to do with this problem of a universe in which the distances between things has been changing. But imagine, for a moment, that gravity keeps things nice and causal. That time is bundled up in places with matter (and therefore gravity, kinda like how electric fields get concentrated in dielectrics), but otherwise is free to diminish (since if there are a finite number of "things", not necessary matter, responsible for time, then they would likely be preserved). That is to say that the way we measure distance is intimately tied into time, since we measure moving things with "known" speeds. If we assume that light travels at some constant (either just now, or since the beginning), then the evidence of the big bang suggests that the universe is expanding. If time is simply dilating, then the speed of light is not constant far from other bits of mass (ignoring the obvious objection that E=mc^2 and what is light but energy), but if we assume the speed of light to be constant, then it also appears as though the universe expands into nothingness.
... there's not much to d=r*t and it's one of these variables (I know, a big, oversimplification of cosmology).
Why the weird (and likely incorrect) alternate theory? I don't think science is allowed to say that any measurement's implications are true by definition. That is, the idea that the universe expands into nothingness (simply by definition of the universe) doesn't seem justified at all. The very definition of the universe prevents scientists from ever knowing if this interpretation is correct. Based off the mostly healthy skepticism of science towards other pieces of evidence and other human enterprises, I find it surprising for them to produce a hypothesis which is impossible to test.
I understand the desire to explain the mystery of the evidence before us, but to create a question whose answer is epistemologically impossible seems to be worse than the mystery itself. Nothingness is the very opposite of knowledge, of evidence. All that we know is that the perceived distances are getting bigger. Is that because space expands, the speed of light is variable, or that time is more complex than previously imagined? I dunno
Since this is so weird (and likely offtopic) already, I'll just make a note to myself:
3 options:
(1) d(t) = r*t
(2) d = r(t)*t
(3) d = r*t(d)
What's also interesting here is that the big 3 search engines (i.e. the things that most consumers would simply label as 'THE internet') are going to create a definition for clicks and possibly some shared base technology. It doesn't really matter how good or bad that definition or technology actually is, since together these 3 are basically the only show in town. They each retain their own differentiation and usage characteristics, but unless the definition or tech aren't that good, advertisers will have to decide whether or not they want to advertise with search engines period. They may not have that nice capability to vote with their dollars, since from the standpoint of click fraud, all three might just be at the same risk level. You know, something like the oil cartels (I know, very different proportions, but still illustrates legal collusion).
If anyone here is familiar with the concept of waveguides or merely transmission lines, then you should think of this concept as a dense collection of light-guides. There have been various suggestions as to how to create optical circuits (the familiar capacitor, inductor, resistor, but at optical frequencies) and they seem to always revolve around metamaterials (materials which have a negative refractive index, in some cases). Nanospheres constructed out of metamaterials can be used to construct optical transmission lines. Confinement is impossibly good, but I'd imagine they still have the problem of how to couple light into the waveguide. With standard techniques and materials, one could use an antenna at sub-optical frequencies, but I'm not so sure about the existence of metamaterial-based antennas, especially operating at optical frequencies. Of course, since it's optical, one could instead opt for a metamaterial-based lens (capable of focusing past the diffraction limit). The real trick to making an invisibility cloak is not necessarily some intrinsic delay (which, in this case, would not exhibit a refraction problem a la the Predator's cloak), but being able to couple all the light to the optical waveguides. That means the lenses or antennas need to be perfectly matched (in terms of group velocity) to air; otherwise, some reflections would result and you would see it as a small reflection. Primitive versions of these cloaks would need to still take advantage of dark places, rather than to be in direct light where the cloak would likely be somewhat visible (though its occupant would remain masked by the cloak).
In all likelihood, unless they can get it to perfectly match group velocities across the air/coupling apparatus interface, you will always see a small sheen to the cloak, kind of like a highly polished piece of glass (nearly invisible, but not quite).
This is of great interest not simply to physicists, but to electromagnetic engineers.
Sometimes impedance mismatch is included in the definition of gain, depending on the source.
I think it's interesting that when a genetic basis for behavior X is discovered, it is regarded as a disease or "condition." Why is it not chocked up to the mysterious concept of personality? Or culture? Why exactly is this something to be cured or diagnosed? Perhaps this is how that altogether strange concept of microevolution works. Some folks just gotta be discoverers and adventurers.
Yes, changing the length of the signal path does make a difference, but typically, computers process stuff at relatively low (compared to light) frequencies, implying that only a small performance benefit will be obtained by shortening signal paths. The biggest limitation to speed are the switching times of the transistors. Once you get down to the point where changing signal path length provides the best performance increase of all possible changes to the technology, you're hitting the physical (electromagnetic) limit of that material.
Perhaps a more interesting method would be to factor out the transformer loss, especially while the device is "off." It is possible that some of the manufacturers are using less efficient (and therefore, presumably cheaper) power bricks, especially if you wanna sell the device at a loss (XBox, XBox360, PS2). While that doesn't really affect the bottom line results (i.e., if I plug in this console and let it just sit there, it will consume $x), it could be more indicative of the quality of the core product and not the peripheral electronics.
Free from guilt and fear? Free from delusions? Free to do only good? Free from corporations and politicians? Sorry bud, you're human, so you're still under all the normal constraints. And which is it: agnostic or atheist? World of difference in there.
A Roman Catholic (in addition to other sects of catholicism like Anglicans, Episcopalians, and SSPX-ers) at least recognize that folks have a hard time forgiving themselves, so they specifically have confessionals. Martin Luther, a Catholic priest, still couldn't deal with it and began the Reformation.
Now that I've pointed out the your splinter, I better attend to the board in my eye.
I disagree. I think this is a simple case of a man who decided to disregard the fact that he was turned down an audience with the prime minister. The head of state. The guy with a million-plus things to do. The result is obvious. Nothing at all was demonstrated except this man's simple ignorance.
Assume for a moment that RMS decided to visit StateA to talk with its PM. As a citizen of StateA, I want the government and its officials to be doing things for me. That's why I elect them. If a guy comes to the PM's door asking for an audience with the PM, I would expect the PM to only grant an audience if this man gave a good argument for how StateA could benefit from said audience. Nothing wrong with that, since the PM is supposed to serve the country! Does this discriminate against the little guy? Absolutely! How can the PM know if that little guy is some nutjob claiming support from millions of StateA's citizens? If StateA is a republic, then maybe convincing one of the theoretically less busy representatives that your cause is worth spending public money would be a better, more appropriate route. The PM is not there to answer every idiot's questions and that has nothing to do with Gates or RMS: it just isn't his job. G
Gates represents something unique, as do all large company leaders: they command large sections of the economy. They really do represent something potentially good for StateA (notice the word 'potentially'). Makes sense why Gates easily obtains an audience while RMS doesn't: RMS failed to provide an argument for why France would benefit (and hence, why the citizens of France should pay the PM to talk with RMS).
There is no conspiracy required between the big companies and the government to make sense of this case. It's just how the government is supposed to work (at least in a republic, and note that I said republic and democracy).
Still, you have to wonder if the power companies would change their rates. After all, only if everyone had the same huge caps connected to the grid would it be possible to redesign the grid to handle such reactive loads. As it is, power companies charge some businesses differently when their reactive load is too high (i.e. wasted reflected power over the wire back to the power company). You would need an impedance transformer to otherwise be installed in everyone's home, increasing the cost, weight and waste. But hey, that's only necessary if you wanna be able to charge the thing quickly.
So what you're saying is that you believe a culture created by military and corporate America in the last fifty years is, in fact, superior or at least different than what the West has had for millennia?
How about this one instead: why don't the Japanese enthusiastically embrace Western culture, including all the conservative angles? Not so enthusiastic there, huh? Relativism, in any form, is the most tyrannical form of an ethical system in existence. Every one is supposedly free under it, but as soon as someone says, "No, I like this form and not that one," then the person/group is labeled as intolerant or perhaps even dangerous and it is dealt with accordingly.
Finally, there's this argument: the Japanese, as a nation, are dying. The population continues to age as the birth rate continues to be below replacement. The children often do not return to take care of their elders and many decide to leave the country, presumably for the better quality of life outside. The education system is cutthroat (resembling something of a caste system), further discouraging potential parents because of the required time and monetary input, especially since it won't pay off (no old-age care from the kids, just the social workers and robots).
How exactly is Japanese culture better?
Indeed, if it is not already obvious, the Cold War has produced real consequences, even if a shot was never fired between the United States and the Soviet Union. Before that war began, the United States did not have such an extensive history of overthrowing regimes.
I'm sorry for your loss (really).
Perhaps it's just my own ignorance as a physical engineer, but aren't computer scientists supposed to be scientists? As in, figuring the best way to compute stuff? As in, a computer scientist doesn't equal a programmer? I thought that was what a software engineer does.
But you should also understand that coincidence is all that you've got. No such thing as "proof" in the real world. Simply a high level of coincidence (i.e. correlation) between two events. The reason why the OP was trying to connect the dots is the same reason why people HAVE to believe in causality. I don't think anyone could honestly state that he/she wouldn't wonder WHY something strange is happening (like a random floating object on Earth ... an apparent violation of the known laws of physics). The fact that numerous people have the same anedoctal story regarding cell phones and cancer is certainly interesting, but certainly not proof. Neither are thousands of tests regarding a single aspect of the universe performed by scientists in lab coats -- the priests of truth, as popular opinion would have us understand it.
Furthermore, your quip about microwave ovens not causing sterlity is an interesting, but flawed comparison. One device (the cell) is designed to radiate. The other device (the oven) is not designed to radiate. Very big difference, as an oven that radiates into free space is far less efficient (aside from the health issues) than an oven that basically contains its energy within the cavity.
The FDA should definitely check this thing out (which you know, is what peer review is all about) as it goes against the grain, but it certainly is important that there is no such thing as a proof of truth in reality; the best we can ever do is establish correlations between measurements and point out lies.
The iPod reference is completely misleading, as simple harmonic analysis is way bigger than just an iPod. It's merely talking about this guy proving that Fourier was basically right, validating harmonic analysis and expanding the horizons for signal processing. That's the biggie: signal processing, not the bloody iPod. The stupid article probably includes iPod just for the sake of hits.