Actually, all of this is disclosed at the fair. Any student working in a high-end research lab (or frankly, any place more advanced than your standard high school lab) is required to submit forms signed by the head of said institutions and detail the size and scope of the involvement of the lab. This includes graduate student mentors, access to equipment, and other information.
Having judged at this fair, I can tell you the answer is none. I'm not saying there weren't projects that failed to live up to the expectations that the judges had, but nearly all of the projects were innovative in some way.
There's really only one answer to the ears and mouth problem, which also happens to be one of my all time favorite pick-up lines:
"Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?"
No. Blood must be drawn directly from the venous system (or arterial system, depending on the goal). At that depth, there aren't even that many capillaries.
Not as such. The method in question says specifically that the system involves PDAs and other such devices (claims 12-18 of the patent application). Additionally, as the conversation above asserts, the claims relate to reversal of motion in six directions. Since a mouse does not detect rotational movements or vertical movements (lifting the mouse off the desk does nothing), this would not constitute an infringement.
You scoff at the above poster, but there are (non-lethal) mutations possible that could make these particular bacteria more dangerous to people. A single mutation causes an amino acid change in the protein that converts uranium to uranite. Now, instead of uranium, it binds phosphorus (or calcium, or ferrous ions, or whatever) because its pore size is different. Instead of removing uranium for the water, it now creates large, insoluble phosphorus deposits. Even if the remaining bacteria remove the uranium, you are still left with a completely unlivable ecosystem for micro-organisms (and higher life forms which feed on them, and so on), because basic nutrients are in extremely short supply. In essence, you've traded one barren landscape for another, and that just fails to help anyone.
This isn't a terribly likely scenario. 99.999% of mutations are likely to be either fatal to the microorganisms or irrelevant. On the other hand, if a group of bacteria are exposed to 10^m photons of gamma radiation...I'm guessing at least a few beneficial, non-desirable mutations could occur. They won't turn the microbes into the blob, but they could end up causing some very non-desirable effects.
(a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.
This is a pretty typical law - I know that PA has pretty much the same code. Doing a little quick research, State "keep right" laws - you can see that most states (31/50) have the exact same laws. Six states (IL,KS,KY,ME,MA,NJ) actually forbid use of the left lane, and two states (PA, WA) have a slight ban on the using the left. The rest of the states have no specific law, though all of these states require you not to obstruct the flow of traffic.
Yeah - I can't really complain about traffic (I'm from Pittsburgh. We have traffic, just not a lot of it.). But we still get this. On the two main highways, there are two major tunnels (Ft. Pitt Tunnel, Squirrel Hill Tunnel). Both are two lanes in each direction (separate tubes), and during rush hour are always a major point of congestion. Three of the four tunnel entrances are bottleneck points, meaning you expect them to back up at least a little. But the fourth is clear roadway for a solid mile up to the tunnel. I think that people are afraid the tunnel monster will awaken if they drive past too quickly.
It's not so much that there is traffic. It's that when I see traffic for no reason, I'm hoping there's a pile corpses at the head of the line to justify it.
Actually, I think that the point still stands. Cars in similar circumstances (neighborhood parked in, type of car, etc.) are less likely to be broken into when parked in a big pool of light than on a street where no-one can see anything at all. Merely saying that someone can commit a crime in bright light is not saying that it's more likely. I would suggest that you examine news stories to see which phrase comes up more: "daring daytime robbery" or "daring nighttime robbery". I'm guessing you find the first one a lot more.
There's another thing here - you don't need a completely dark patch in order for the night sky to be seen in much of it's glory. I also spent a good chunk of time in Morgantown, WV (ok, it was actually a bad chunk of time, but you get my drift). Though there was a lot of ambient light (3 lights in front of my apartment building alone, one of about a dozen in the complex), all I had to do to get a fairly good view of the sky was tromp up the hill a ways so that some trees and ground were between me and the light. Granted, this was when the lights were off in the stadium down the hill, but the point remains the same. Although I couldn't make out every feature of the sky, I could definitely see the milky way and most of the familiar northern constellations, plus occasional satellites and planets.
While it is a sad fact that you can't watch the night sky a lot of places (and it is - I remember taking a road trip from Chicago up to Wisconsin one night to watch a meteor shower), it seems to be an unfortunate necessity. Here's an analogy for those who don't get the point.
If you've ever been camping, you know that if you want to stargaze, you have to wander away from the campfire. If its a group of 5 or so people camping, its a small fire, and it doesn't take you long to meander away, look up in awe, and wander back. Now increase your camp size. Now its fifty people. You have bigger fires, and probably more than one. You have enough people that at least one fire is burning all night. Increase size by another factor of ten and you find more fires. Now you probably qualify as a community. You probably have specialized fires for a blacksmith or other craftsman. You likely have dozens of fires, a good many of which will burn throughout the night. The distance you must walk increases proportionately. Now we're going to make the jump. With 10,000 times the residents of our hypothetical community, a large city would have 1000s of fires (now electric lights) to provide security. At this point - one has to travel a significant distance to really get a good look at the sky (from downtown Chicago, the distance is approximately 80 miles if you're traveling north).
Yes it's sad - but in order to maintain dense civilizations that give us all the things that better the human condition, we must sacrifice some of those things. And as others have pointed out, it's not as if those things are completely gone. Take a bus or a train ride. Drive out to the middle of nowhere.
This is going to be designed for people who are actually clueless. I give you a direct quote from the page on the site.
"While more searchable information is cool, nearly half of all searches don't result in the answer that people are seeking."
I don't know about you, but I only fail to get the information I want if I'm looking for something really esoteric or poorly defined, like what the name of the bar is next door to where Fuddruckers used to be on the North Shore, or the name of the guy who invented the Eton Wall Game. You can't get that information on the web because it doesn't exist there (and may not exist anywhere).
The problem with most of these comments is who they come from. Slashdotters (like myself), typically don't have a ton of problems with the internet. This isn't designed around us. It's designed for people who really have no idea how the whole thing works.
With an email address, everybody knows that the local-part (before the @) is arbitrary and the domain corresponds, of course, to a domain. Using the local-part as an organizational identifier, except in flaky ad-hoc setups for small sub organizations(student_club@school.edu style), just isn't done. The domain is always where you look for organizational information.
Actually, the sad part is, everybody doesn't know this crucial piece of information. It's why Nigerian schemes and other e-mail junk-shit works occasionally. Because people are clearly stupid.
All that said, what a way to waste a reputation for a place. The concept that you can claim all uses of an abbreviation are absurd. Just to check it out, a quick Google search also turned up Shelter Rock Jewish Center in Nassau, NY and Serangoon Junior College in Singapore.
You jest, but I can't tell you how often I operate my car radio just by feeling the buttons with my right hand and knowing the order their in. Since my focus is on what's in front of me, I'm more or less "blind" to what the radio looks like. With the growing popularity of in-dash controls for nearly everything, I can't imagine why even this wouldn't have some level of popularity.
Actually, I can do "almost" anything I want with a photograph that I take. I took it, therefore, I hold the copyright on that particular photo (though not on anything in the photo). Regardless of resolution, intent, or anything else. The exceptions would seem to be the following:
1) Using something for commercial purposes with intent to hurt the offended target in a market. I can't show happy, satisfied people leaving a White Castle and tell people how happy they were they ate at Burger King. We don't really have that problem here. Google's not really treading on anyone's copyright.
2) I photograph something lewd, indecent, or outright illegal and post it in a public forum (like Google maps). If these people really wanted to keep Google away, they sunbathe nude in their front yards and Google couldn't use the pictures. And it would probably actually work, even if you couldn't look your neighbors in the eye for a few weeks.
3) I persistently seek out a single target for the purposes of my photography. Then it qualifies as stalking. Taking a photo of every house in a neighborhood isn't stalking by any measure. And frankly, stalking without trespassing or burglary is hardly stalking at all anymore. After all, look at the celebrity gossip news.
I may have missed some points, but those are the big ones. There really isn't anything illegal at all. At worst, there is a potential for civil suit, though that is minor at best.
Actually, since most restaurants, stores, etc. are private property, they can ask you to leave for any reason. Talking loudly or using profanity is legal everywhere (see the first amendment), but a restaurant can ask you to leave the premises for either of these. If you refuse, you are trespassing, and the police may be called.
As to the matter of whether its right or not, proponents of smoking bans tell you the same thing - an individual's right to whatever (even if its legal, and, in the case of breast-feeding, a good idea) must be waived if it is offensive to society. Of course, what is offensive is so subjective that legislating it is a silly matter. But that doesn't stop people from trying.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially the particle accelerator and the fusion reactor. No, I'm not kidding. And those weren't top prize winners.
Actually, all of this is disclosed at the fair. Any student working in a high-end research lab (or frankly, any place more advanced than your standard high school lab) is required to submit forms signed by the head of said institutions and detail the size and scope of the involvement of the lab. This includes graduate student mentors, access to equipment, and other information.
Having judged at this fair, I can tell you the answer is none. I'm not saying there weren't projects that failed to live up to the expectations that the judges had, but nearly all of the projects were innovative in some way.
And, in addition, the company who provided the service had agreed to cooperate with the investigation: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/internet-service-to-help-in-probe-of-pitt-threats-631734/ God that title is really misleading.
There's really only one answer to the ears and mouth problem, which also happens to be one of my all time favorite pick-up lines: "Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?"
No. Blood must be drawn directly from the venous system (or arterial system, depending on the goal). At that depth, there aren't even that many capillaries.
Not as such. The method in question says specifically that the system involves PDAs and other such devices (claims 12-18 of the patent application). Additionally, as the conversation above asserts, the claims relate to reversal of motion in six directions. Since a mouse does not detect rotational movements or vertical movements (lifting the mouse off the desk does nothing), this would not constitute an infringement.
And their spiffy new search engine will do it automatically (just like google) to within the hour. Bing!
You scoff at the above poster, but there are (non-lethal) mutations possible that could make these particular bacteria more dangerous to people. A single mutation causes an amino acid change in the protein that converts uranium to uranite. Now, instead of uranium, it binds phosphorus (or calcium, or ferrous ions, or whatever) because its pore size is different. Instead of removing uranium for the water, it now creates large, insoluble phosphorus deposits. Even if the remaining bacteria remove the uranium, you are still left with a completely unlivable ecosystem for micro-organisms (and higher life forms which feed on them, and so on), because basic nutrients are in extremely short supply. In essence, you've traded one barren landscape for another, and that just fails to help anyone. This isn't a terribly likely scenario. 99.999% of mutations are likely to be either fatal to the microorganisms or irrelevant. On the other hand, if a group of bacteria are exposed to 10^m photons of gamma radiation...I'm guessing at least a few beneficial, non-desirable mutations could occur. They won't turn the microbes into the blob, but they could end up causing some very non-desirable effects.
(a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.
This is a pretty typical law - I know that PA has pretty much the same code. Doing a little quick research, State "keep right" laws - you can see that most states (31/50) have the exact same laws. Six states (IL,KS,KY,ME,MA,NJ) actually forbid use of the left lane, and two states (PA, WA) have a slight ban on the using the left. The rest of the states have no specific law, though all of these states require you not to obstruct the flow of traffic.
Yeah - I can't really complain about traffic (I'm from Pittsburgh. We have traffic, just not a lot of it.). But we still get this. On the two main highways, there are two major tunnels (Ft. Pitt Tunnel, Squirrel Hill Tunnel). Both are two lanes in each direction (separate tubes), and during rush hour are always a major point of congestion. Three of the four tunnel entrances are bottleneck points, meaning you expect them to back up at least a little. But the fourth is clear roadway for a solid mile up to the tunnel. I think that people are afraid the tunnel monster will awaken if they drive past too quickly. It's not so much that there is traffic. It's that when I see traffic for no reason, I'm hoping there's a pile corpses at the head of the line to justify it.
I absolutely agree. Made my armor class 9, it did. That cursed armor is impossible to get rid of, and the kobolds keep smacking me around.
A good point - I'd mod you up, but no points today.
Actually, I think that the point still stands. Cars in similar circumstances (neighborhood parked in, type of car, etc.) are less likely to be broken into when parked in a big pool of light than on a street where no-one can see anything at all. Merely saying that someone can commit a crime in bright light is not saying that it's more likely. I would suggest that you examine news stories to see which phrase comes up more: "daring daytime robbery" or "daring nighttime robbery". I'm guessing you find the first one a lot more.
There's another thing here - you don't need a completely dark patch in order for the night sky to be seen in much of it's glory. I also spent a good chunk of time in Morgantown, WV (ok, it was actually a bad chunk of time, but you get my drift). Though there was a lot of ambient light (3 lights in front of my apartment building alone, one of about a dozen in the complex), all I had to do to get a fairly good view of the sky was tromp up the hill a ways so that some trees and ground were between me and the light. Granted, this was when the lights were off in the stadium down the hill, but the point remains the same. Although I couldn't make out every feature of the sky, I could definitely see the milky way and most of the familiar northern constellations, plus occasional satellites and planets.
While it is a sad fact that you can't watch the night sky a lot of places (and it is - I remember taking a road trip from Chicago up to Wisconsin one night to watch a meteor shower), it seems to be an unfortunate necessity. Here's an analogy for those who don't get the point. If you've ever been camping, you know that if you want to stargaze, you have to wander away from the campfire. If its a group of 5 or so people camping, its a small fire, and it doesn't take you long to meander away, look up in awe, and wander back. Now increase your camp size. Now its fifty people. You have bigger fires, and probably more than one. You have enough people that at least one fire is burning all night. Increase size by another factor of ten and you find more fires. Now you probably qualify as a community. You probably have specialized fires for a blacksmith or other craftsman. You likely have dozens of fires, a good many of which will burn throughout the night. The distance you must walk increases proportionately. Now we're going to make the jump. With 10,000 times the residents of our hypothetical community, a large city would have 1000s of fires (now electric lights) to provide security. At this point - one has to travel a significant distance to really get a good look at the sky (from downtown Chicago, the distance is approximately 80 miles if you're traveling north). Yes it's sad - but in order to maintain dense civilizations that give us all the things that better the human condition, we must sacrifice some of those things. And as others have pointed out, it's not as if those things are completely gone. Take a bus or a train ride. Drive out to the middle of nowhere.
Actually, I've seen this. Fortunately, it's in the guise of a running joke over at 8-Bit Theater about the weird shit Brian's cat Charlie eats: http://www.nuklearpower.com/2009/05/16/what-youve-all-been-waiting-for/ . In all seriousness, it can be quite amusing when it shows up.
This is going to be designed for people who are actually clueless. I give you a direct quote from the page on the site. "While more searchable information is cool, nearly half of all searches don't result in the answer that people are seeking." I don't know about you, but I only fail to get the information I want if I'm looking for something really esoteric or poorly defined, like what the name of the bar is next door to where Fuddruckers used to be on the North Shore, or the name of the guy who invented the Eton Wall Game. You can't get that information on the web because it doesn't exist there (and may not exist anywhere). The problem with most of these comments is who they come from. Slashdotters (like myself), typically don't have a ton of problems with the internet. This isn't designed around us. It's designed for people who really have no idea how the whole thing works.
Anyone else find it ironic that step 3 is profit?
Even the director's wand at an orchestra is a form of remote. But not very advanced in itself.
The word you're looking for is "baton".
With an email address, everybody knows that the local-part (before the @) is arbitrary and the domain corresponds, of course, to a domain. Using the local-part as an organizational identifier, except in flaky ad-hoc setups for small sub organizations(student_club@school.edu style), just isn't done. The domain is always where you look for organizational information.
Actually, the sad part is, everybody doesn't know this crucial piece of information. It's why Nigerian schemes and other e-mail junk-shit works occasionally. Because people are clearly stupid. All that said, what a way to waste a reputation for a place. The concept that you can claim all uses of an abbreviation are absurd. Just to check it out, a quick Google search also turned up Shelter Rock Jewish Center in Nassau, NY and Serangoon Junior College in Singapore.
You jest, but I can't tell you how often I operate my car radio just by feeling the buttons with my right hand and knowing the order their in. Since my focus is on what's in front of me, I'm more or less "blind" to what the radio looks like. With the growing popularity of in-dash controls for nearly everything, I can't imagine why even this wouldn't have some level of popularity.
Rockets only look like that so they can violate mother sky.
Actually, I can do "almost" anything I want with a photograph that I take. I took it, therefore, I hold the copyright on that particular photo (though not on anything in the photo). Regardless of resolution, intent, or anything else. The exceptions would seem to be the following:
1) Using something for commercial purposes with intent to hurt the offended target in a market. I can't show happy, satisfied people leaving a White Castle and tell people how happy they were they ate at Burger King. We don't really have that problem here. Google's not really treading on anyone's copyright.
2) I photograph something lewd, indecent, or outright illegal and post it in a public forum (like Google maps). If these people really wanted to keep Google away, they sunbathe nude in their front yards and Google couldn't use the pictures. And it would probably actually work, even if you couldn't look your neighbors in the eye for a few weeks.
3) I persistently seek out a single target for the purposes of my photography. Then it qualifies as stalking. Taking a photo of every house in a neighborhood isn't stalking by any measure. And frankly, stalking without trespassing or burglary is hardly stalking at all anymore. After all, look at the celebrity gossip news.
I may have missed some points, but those are the big ones. There really isn't anything illegal at all. At worst, there is a potential for civil suit, though that is minor at best.
Actually, since most restaurants, stores, etc. are private property, they can ask you to leave for any reason. Talking loudly or using profanity is legal everywhere (see the first amendment), but a restaurant can ask you to leave the premises for either of these. If you refuse, you are trespassing, and the police may be called. As to the matter of whether its right or not, proponents of smoking bans tell you the same thing - an individual's right to whatever (even if its legal, and, in the case of breast-feeding, a good idea) must be waived if it is offensive to society. Of course, what is offensive is so subjective that legislating it is a silly matter. But that doesn't stop people from trying.