...if they can deposit a layer of GaAs on top of the sacrificial layer and make circuits out of that, then why do they need the bottom wafer at all? Why not add the sacrificial layers on something less expensive and then deposit the GaAs circuit layer on top of that?
Because the chips need to be made on single-crystal material, which needs to be grown on a single crystal substrate.
This is, by the way, not particularly new in the solar cell research community. Photovoltaics researchers have been developing technologies like this for a long time-- it's called "epitaxial lift-off" or "monolithic metamorphic" in the most recent versions (with "metamorphic" indicating a change in lattice constant), but older variants were called "cleft" and "peeled film technology".
"A key stumbling block in the effort to combat global warming has been the intimate link between greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth."
Time to cue up the warning about correlation not being causation.
Most particularly, in this case: when the economy gets better, people buy more stuff. There's a correlation between how many teddy bears people buy for their children and their income. That doesn't mean that increasing the production of teddy bears will increase average income. When the economy grows, people buy more.
So, I'd like to see the text of the "rule" saying she needed to use a.gov account before saying she broke the law. (People seem to be referring to the 2013 National Archives and Records Administration guidance as the "rules", but 2013 was after she left office.)
After some quick digging, this appears to be the law broken:
Humans are the most deadly predators that the planet has ever had. Killing stuff is what we're really really good at. Making weapons is something we're really really good at.
Actually, making tools and organizing labor is we're really good at.
Exactly. And tools and organization are the two most useful skills... for efficiently killing things.
I personally have never killed anything larger than a bug in my life; I suspect a lot of other people haven't either. I've never had to, because there have always been other people who are willing to do those unpleasant tasks for me, in exchange for modest amounts of money.
Paying somebody else to do it turns out to be a very efficient strategy for killing.
Humans are the most deadly predators that the planet has ever had. Killing stuff is what we're really really good at. Making weapons is something we're really really good at.
Zombies... their weapons are teeth and fingernails. Their tactics are go straight in and attack regardless of tactical situation.
I never would have guessed that for the rotating coordinate system the trajectory would be so very close to a straight line, although once you graph it, it makes sense.
The plot isn't very impressive. It looks like a line straight through the center. The min radius is 114m so basically over 6500m drop the center moves about 114 m.
That doesn't seem right. You are doing the calculation in the rotating coordinate system of the Earth?
Equatorial rotational velocity of the Earth is 465 m/s. The center of the Earth is stationary in the rotating coordinate system, so over a 22 minute drop, the lateral displacement should be 614 kilometers. That's not the distance by which you miss the center, since as you deviate from the initial radial line the gravity vector changes direction, but the effect of that will be small until you get to distances that start to be comparable to 10% of the Earth's radius, so it should be close to the miss distance.
It's a non-Keplerian orbit (even in the non-rotating frame), so you don't come back to the same place you started.
Mathematically it's an example of a degenerate orbit with one zero semi-axis, and the orbital period can be simply calculated from Kepler's laws.
No, it can't; it's not a Keplerian problem. You could calculate the period using Kepler's laws if the Earth were a point mass. But it's not. You could calculate the period using the Brachistochrone calculation if the Earth were a uniform sphere. But it's not. The Earth is layered, with the density changing as you go closer to the center. Only way to solve the problem correctly is numerical integration.
(I'd actually be interested in seeing the calculation done in the article.)
Actually, I should modify my comment. The headline does say a different thing from the summary, but the actual article does in fact go on to give some reasonable evidence that connecting the group to the NSA. So, "tied to NSA" is an accurate summary, although with the caveat "tied to" is words that "stop short" of saying that it actually is the NSA.
In central mass north of Worcester I have gotten 3 feet and it is continuing to fall. There is so much snow I have no where to put it.
The inaccuracy in the prediction seems to be not about the magnitude of the storm, but about how far south it would hit (and, in particular, whether it would hit New York City).
Einstein made essential contributions to quantum mechanics, and yet he objected to many of its implications. His objections have been shown to be wrong.
To the contrary, his "objections" consisted of pointed out consequences of quantum mechanics that seemed paradoxical, but, as experiment showed much later, were completely real. Einstein is the "E" in "EPR", and the implications of the EPR paper pretty much is the foundation of quantum computing.
"A classical computer would have to run for thousands of years to compute the quantum equations of motion for just 100 atoms. A quantum simulator could do it in less than a second."
I'd say that instead of falsifying data NASA and NOAA need to start being honest.
The difficulty is that once you decide that you can selectively ignore facts because of a huge conspiracy to falsify data, it becomes impossible for any amount of information to ever change your mind. So, the NASA data is falsified? And, the NOAA data, that's falsified too. And the University of East Anglia, of course. And the Berkeley data-- that was done specifically to address the problems people had with the NASA and NOAA data-- http://berkeleyearth.org/ That's faked too.? How about the Japanese data? http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t... Also faked? The Australians-- fake too?
Once you conclude everything that disagrees with you is fake, your opinion is incontrovertible-- since nobody can confront it.
Right; there are both positive and negative feedbacks.
If you really want to know about the various climate feedbacks, try the summary in section 8.6 ("Climate sensitivity and feedbacks") of the the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/... (the section starts on page 629)
Im saying that 20 of those 30 years didnt see any warming.
If you want to claim this (nonsense), you should at least back it up with some links, so we can add the involved web sites to our kill files.
you would ignore data that contradicts your beliefs???
It would be helpful here if everybody pointed to a common data set, so we all knew that we were talking about the same thing.
Here's the NASA-NOAA, showing NOAA (in blue) and NASA (in red) 's values for average temperature since 1880: http://www.wired.com/wp-conten...
You can see the "hiatus" in the far right of the graph: the curve to right of about 2000. If you blow up just this portion of the graph, and leave out everything to the right of 1998, you can make a graph which makes it appear that global warming has stopped.
So: the deniers look at this graph and say "warming stopped in 2002". People skeptical of the deniers say "There's a clear upward trend with random fluctuations; there's nothing statistically significant in the data after 2002; it's well within the range of variation in the record."
Or, you can say "There's a clear long-term rise. However, superimposed on that long-term trend are shorter term variations; these shorter term variations are also data, and the study of the causes of these variations may be a valuable subject for research."
Slashdot Mirror
Cool. I've been proposing this for years.
http://telerobotics.gsfc.nasa....
http://telerobotics.gsfc.nasa....
...if they can deposit a layer of GaAs on top of the sacrificial layer and make circuits out of that, then why do they need the bottom wafer at all? Why not add the sacrificial layers on something less expensive and then deposit the GaAs circuit layer on top of that?
Because the chips need to be made on single-crystal material, which needs to be grown on a single crystal substrate.
This is, by the way, not particularly new in the solar cell research community. Photovoltaics researchers have been developing technologies like this for a long time-- it's called "epitaxial lift-off" or "monolithic metamorphic" in the most recent versions (with "metamorphic" indicating a change in lattice constant), but older variants were called "cleft" and "peeled film technology".
"A key stumbling block in the effort to combat global warming has been the intimate link between greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth."
Time to cue up the warning about correlation not being causation.
Most particularly, in this case: when the economy gets better, people buy more stuff. There's a correlation between how many teddy bears people buy for their children and their income. That doesn't mean that increasing the production of teddy bears will increase average income. When the economy grows, people buy more.
I don't get it. What's wrong with using traffic lights?
These are traffic lights. Traffic lights with cameras attached.
They're just traffic lights in the shape of robots. Which is pretty cool, when you look at the pictures.
After some quick digging, this appears to be the law broken: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
That link says nothing whatsoever about rules for government employee e-mail.
That's a link to rules about ISPs archiving e-mail that is the subject of a subpoena.
So, I'd like to see the text of the "rule" saying she needed to use a .gov account before saying she broke the law. (People seem to be referring to the 2013 National Archives and Records Administration guidance as the "rules", but 2013 was after she left office.)
After some quick digging, this appears to be the law broken:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Basically, she was required by law to archive her communications on federal servers. She did not.
The link you give says nothing of the sort. The link states that a government may require an ISP to archive e-mail subject to a subpoena.
That has precisely nothing to do with State Department employees, nor does it say anything whatsoever about what e-mail addresses they use.
Also of note, according to TSG she forwarded classified intelligence Emails to Sidney Blumenthal, who was not a federal employee.
That is a great example of "ABCs"-- Argument By Changing the subject.
Leaving the country to be run by people who are either too clueless to get out of jury duty
I've never quite understood: why would anybody want to get out of jury duty?
Pick the pool of candidates like we pick jury pools.
I've often suggested that, but this is the first time I've heard anybody else suggest it.
Yes: vote, but the candidates on the slate should be randomly selected from the population
Humans are the most deadly predators that the planet has ever had. Killing stuff is what we're really really good at. Making weapons is something we're really really good at.
Actually, making tools and organizing labor is we're really good at.
Exactly. And tools and organization are the two most useful skills... for efficiently killing things.
I personally have never killed anything larger than a bug in my life; I suspect a lot of other people haven't either. I've never had to, because there have always been other people who are willing to do those unpleasant tasks for me, in exchange for modest amounts of money.
Paying somebody else to do it turns out to be a very efficient strategy for killing.
Nevertheless, this is silly.
Humans are the most deadly predators that the planet has ever had. Killing stuff is what we're really really good at. Making weapons is something we're really really good at.
Zombies... their weapons are teeth and fingernails. Their tactics are go straight in and attack regardless of tactical situation.
They wouldn't have a chance.
Dimpled spinning ball
ice in bottoms of craters
glints bright in sunlight.
The ethics violation isn't that he was paid by a corporation.
The ethics violation is in not disclosing it.
Wow- that's cool. Thanks for the graphs!
I never would have guessed that for the rotating coordinate system the trajectory would be so very close to a straight line, although once you graph it, it makes sense.
OK I created the following Matlab code:
Cool!
The plot isn't very impressive. It looks like a line straight through the center. The min radius is 114m so basically over 6500m drop the center moves about 114 m.
That doesn't seem right. You are doing the calculation in the rotating coordinate system of the Earth?
Equatorial rotational velocity of the Earth is 465 m/s. The center of the Earth is stationary in the rotating coordinate system, so over a 22 minute drop, the lateral displacement should be 614 kilometers. That's not the distance by which you miss the center, since as you deviate from the initial radial line the gravity vector changes direction, but the effect of that will be small until you get to distances that start to be comparable to 10% of the Earth's radius, so it should be close to the miss distance.
It's a non-Keplerian orbit (even in the non-rotating frame), so you don't come back to the same place you started.
Mathematically it's an example of a degenerate orbit with one zero semi-axis, and the orbital period can be simply calculated from Kepler's laws.
No, it can't; it's not a Keplerian problem. You could calculate the period using Kepler's laws if the Earth were a point mass. But it's not. You could calculate the period using the Brachistochrone calculation if the Earth were a uniform sphere. But it's not. The Earth is layered, with the density changing as you go closer to the center. Only way to solve the problem correctly is numerical integration.
(I'd actually be interested in seeing the calculation done in the article.)
Actually, I should modify my comment. The headline does say a different thing from the summary, but the actual article does in fact go on to give some reasonable evidence that connecting the group to the NSA. So, "tied to NSA" is an accurate summary, although with the caveat "tied to" is words that "stop short" of saying that it actually is the NSA.
The headlne says different things than the text and the original article.
The headline says that they "were found"... but they weren't.
The headline that they are "tied to NSA"... but TFA says that "researchers stopped short of saying Equation Group was the handiwork of the NSA."
In central mass north of Worcester I have gotten 3 feet and it is continuing to fall. There is so much snow I have no where to put it.
The inaccuracy in the prediction seems to be not about the magnitude of the storm, but about how far south it would hit (and, in particular, whether it would hit New York City).
Nice discussion of the various models' predictions here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/dat...
Einstein made essential contributions to quantum mechanics, and yet he objected to many of its implications. His objections have been shown to be wrong.
To the contrary, his "objections" consisted of pointed out consequences of quantum mechanics that seemed paradoxical, but, as experiment showed much later, were completely real. Einstein is the "E" in "EPR", and the implications of the EPR paper pretty much is the foundation of quantum computing.
"A classical computer would have to run for thousands of years to compute the quantum equations of motion for just 100 atoms. A quantum simulator could do it in less than a second."
...and a hundred atoms can do it in real time!
So we should kill 6+ billion people? Are you fucking insane?
That's a strawman argument.
Killing people was not suggested. Are you insane?
The easiest way to reduce population "in few hundred years" is to reduce the birth rate slightly.
I'd say that instead of falsifying data NASA and NOAA need to start being honest.
The difficulty is that once you decide that you can selectively ignore facts because of a huge conspiracy to falsify data, it becomes impossible for any amount of information to ever change your mind. So, the NASA data is falsified? And, the NOAA data, that's falsified too. And the University of East Anglia, of course. And the Berkeley data-- that was done specifically to address the problems people had with the NASA and NOAA data-- http://berkeleyearth.org/ That's faked too.? How about the Japanese data? http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t... Also faked? The Australians-- fake too?
Once you conclude everything that disagrees with you is fake, your opinion is incontrovertible-- since nobody can confront it.
Right; there are both positive and negative feedbacks.
If you really want to know about the various climate feedbacks, try the summary in section 8.6 ("Climate sensitivity and feedbacks") of the the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/... (the section starts on page 629)
Im saying that 20 of those 30 years didnt see any warming.
If you want to claim this (nonsense), you should at least back it up with some links, so we can add the involved web sites to our kill files.
you would ignore data that contradicts your beliefs???
It would be helpful here if everybody pointed to a common data set, so we all knew that we were talking about the same thing.
Here's the NASA-NOAA, showing NOAA (in blue) and NASA (in red) 's values for average temperature since 1880: http://www.wired.com/wp-conten...
You can see the "hiatus" in the far right of the graph: the curve to right of about 2000. If you blow up just this portion of the graph, and leave out everything to the right of 1998, you can make a graph which makes it appear that global warming has stopped.
So: the deniers look at this graph and say "warming stopped in 2002". People skeptical of the deniers say "There's a clear upward trend with random fluctuations; there's nothing statistically significant in the data after 2002; it's well within the range of variation in the record."
Or, you can say "There's a clear long-term rise. However, superimposed on that long-term trend are shorter term variations; these shorter term variations are also data, and the study of the causes of these variations may be a valuable subject for research."
Why does the chart only go back to 1950?
Here's the Berkeley Earth graphic, with temperatures going back to 1870:
static.berkeleyearth.org/graphics/figure9.pdf
(also comparing models to measured data)