It is very common for competition shooters to put a barrier in front of one eye while focusing on the target with the other (I don't find that it take conscious effort, and I only shoot like this randomly as I am not a competition shooter). This keeps them from having to have one eye closed for long periods which gets tiring. In the case of a shooter, your brain just forgets about the other eye while in that situation. If I place my finger close enough to my eye that the other one can't see it, I can't focus on it regardless of effort because it is too close. With shooting you are focusing on the farther object and forgetting the closer (and the barrier is far to close to focus on anyway), maybe that is an important distinction.
You may be saying this but for those unfamiliar with the set up, see the third picture in this link and the description (http://science.howstuffworks.com/apache-helicopter5.htm). It works with a monocular lens, the left eye never gets covered nor has the projected image.
The Target Acquisition and Designation Sights, Pilot Night Vision System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Acquisition_and_Designation_System,_Pilot_Night_Vision_System) for the AH-64 uses a single eye piece. So it seems like this type of thing can and has been done (and this one is pretty cool, it tracks the head movements of the pilot and points the 50 caliber cannon where he/she looks). The single eye piece doesn't seem to cause problems for the pilots that use these systems. Not saying I am interested in Google Glass, but they should have been able to figure out the problem discussed in the TFA.
Plus once you file the police report and are a suspect of identity theft you can freeze your credit for free (usually it costs up to $10 per agency per person depending on the state you live in). Freezing your credit is easy to do and essentially eliminates the possibility of someone starting credit in your name (unless they break into your house and take the codes you printed from the three credit bureaus after freezing your credit). There is a guide to freezing your credit on the website of a financial podcast I listen too (http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/personal-finance-credit/credit-freeze-and-thaw-guide/nFbL/). You can also check on your credit for free once each year at the following website https://www.annualcreditreport.com/cra/index.jsp (I recommend checking one of the three every 4 months).
And good films. However, it is only possible to make money on those when people in other industries are employed and have disposable income. These jobs are secondary effects of others having money to spend on them. It is maslow's hierarchy of needs, if everyone else is broke they can't and won't buy the media. Some will turn to piracy and some will just do without. You can't create jobs or support an economy with a circle of media industry workers buying each others stuff. By necessity there needs to be other people involved. If the law makers wanted to help, they would work on improving the economy. With more disposable income in the hands of the masses, media sales would increase. If the media industry wanted to help they could improve the quality of their product and/or lower prices (I feel like there is not nearly as many good movies any more, but maybe it is just because I am getting older). While "strengthening" the IP protections of artists may prevent some people from pirating media, I don't think this is the big problem. I'm not sure I know any adults in the work force that pirate stuff. Most just buy the things that they think are worth the price and don't bother with the other stuff.
I missed Ni64, thanks. But it isn't obvious that it is a better choice that Ni62. Ni62 has a larger neutron cross section and higher abundance than Ni64. But who knows if cross section means anything in this scenario, especially after you hit this stuff with 30THz.
All kinds of information nuclear reactions and decay is available in "Nuclides and Isotopes", a chart of the nuclides published by KAPL (Knowles Atomic Power Laboratory). I recommend the "chart" in book form as it comes with a bunch of nuclear physics discussion. Based on the description in the article Ni+n=Cu+e. There is only one stable isotope of Ni that has a chance of going through this process and resulting in a stable isotope of copper and that is Ni62. Ni62 is only 3.63% of naturally occurring nickle. The most abundant isotope is Ni58 (68.07%) and it will go to Ni59 with addition of a neutron and will beta decay to Co59. Ni59 has a 7600 year half life so you could continue to change it to Ni60 then Ni61 then Ni62, but all of this wouldn't happen instantaneously as stated in the article (I guess you could start an enrichment plant so you are only using Ni62, but that cost a lot of money and energy and would have to be factored into the energy balance of the final "reactor"). These types of reactions don't take place in nature because the stable isotopes are already at the bottom of the "valley of stability" (have a minimum mass or maximum binding energy, see pages 27-28 of the 16th edition of the "Nuclides and Isotopes"). I guess it is possible that the 30THz vibrations change the local laws of physics, but I will remain skeptical until there is more than speculation. The article states, "LENR is a very long way from the day when you can go out and buy a home nuclear reactor. In fact, it still has to be proven that the phenomenon even exists, but hundreds of experiments worldwide indicate that heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input do take place with yields of 10 to 100 watts." TFA states that they are not even sure if the phenomenon exists and it doesn't provide the total energy input to the system so you can't tell if 10-100W is noise or error in the measuring equipment (this is one of the things that was going on in the cold fusion of years past).
Agreed, but even "less pollution than X" can be misleading. It is difficult to compare different types of pollution on an apples to apples basis. For example, how much carbon released into the atmosphere given a certain amount of cyanide that seeps into the ground from cyanide heap leaching? But at least that discussion would get the facts on the table. I would argue that the word "clean" isn't always used with a negative motive, but it is likely that the person using it doesn't have an in-depth enough knowledge of the subject to say anything else (in which case maybe they shouldn't be talking). Remember Hanlon's razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
The city I live in has about 60K people. It is entirely powered by 90+Mwe from a small series of hydro plants. After the efficiency conversion of about 1/3 the electrical output from the 250 Mwt would be about enough to do it. Not to shabby to be able to power a 50K person city. I love nuclear but if this is for real it shouldn't be trivialized.
Clean depends on the definition. There is a waste product associated with every kind of industrial process and every kind of energy production. But the forms of the waste are not all the same nor are they equivalent. Many time people equate the term clean to the quantity of carbon produced during the energy production. If this new technology is viable and it actually contains 99% of the carbon that is a HUGE development. The mining process could be improved and much of the eye sore can be avoided if you don't strip mine. I think there is a town in Pennsylvania that has been "on-fire" since the 50s or 60s because an underground coal fire was not contained.
It isn't libertarian economics it real life experience from my brothers stores. And there is nothing I said that would contradict your two points. Prices are set to maximize revenues, I agree. My point was it CAN'T raise prices without driving away the business, notice the parenthetical note I left. Businesses already have the minimum number of employees to maintain the required service level, I agree. They CAN'T let people go without it affecting the quality of the product. You comment is based on the assumption that there is sufficient profit margin for the store owners to take it out of hide. Look at the numbers that I put in the post, the margins don't have much room to support this. For those businesses that have slim margins, prices will go up or or quality will go down. Why make a point based on market economics and then promptly ignore the consequences? Remember, you can't give something to someone that doesn't have it without first taking it from someone who does. Classic Liberal economics, I will take from those that have to give to those that don't.
You probably should note that it is about 500 passenger-miles per gallon (pmpg), not miles per gallon (mpg). The table shows that the train itself gets 1.25 miles per gallon. Still very efficient when compared to other transportation.
I call dibs on the patent for using expandable tissue in the thorax, driven by a remotely controlled diaphragm, to re-oxygenate blood and sustain life. While I am at it I will patent atmospheric gases within a specific range of concentrations on the surface of rocks orbiting around stars. Complete BS.
I am not in favor of patents on genes. I think it is unjustified and immoral. I think methods of detection of certain types of genes may be warranted if the test method is something new that isn't already in use for other genes. It must be more than "use of gene detection method X to find gene BRCA1," where X is a established method. Even if the test is novel, I think there should be some kind of equivalent to FRAND licensing that is required to obtain the patent on the test. Seems to me that the human genome is a "standard essential" to life.
I would love to see these kinds of solutions work too and stem cells just rock. I think both types of research will provide valuable information and exciting possibilities. Whichever one can restore/provide sight first is great. Who knows there may be some kinds of problems where each solution is superior to the other (whether it be cost, performance, risk, etc.). Even if the brain interface work and electronics aren't really used for vision issues in the future, the methods may become applicable in other areas like robotic prosthesis that connect to the brain.
I rode my bike to work for 3 years at that job because driving was so bad. I only did it occasionally for that precise reason (maybe once every couple of months).
It depends on the situation but I don't I don't think an hour in stop and go traffic will deplete the batteries of even current generation electric cars (see http://auto.howstuffworks.com/can-electric-cars-survive-major-traffic-jams.htm). The Nissan leaf normally has a 100 mile radius, under ideal conditions that wouldn't have covered the round trip commute for my last job, 56 miles (I lived out west in the mountains and there was no traffic). The link states that stop and go traffic on a cold day reduced the range to 62 miles. That is still several hours of stop and go traffic. In DC, for example that would allow a round trip to a location about 20 miles outside the beltway (last time I lived there that would put you on about an hour and a half commute each way). I think it would be safe to say that if your one way commute is less than 25 miles or less than 2 hours, you are probably OK with an all electric car. However, if your one way commute is greater than 25 miles or 2 hours, you probably need a hybrid or gasoline car. I can't speak for NYC but in DC the majority of people who commuted into the district itself lived within the shorter limit.
I hope that eventually we get to the point where full sight can be restored for all blind individuals. However, there are many reasons for blindness and this one will probably only help with those caused by problems with the by the retina (at least in the near term, long term all of this research will be tremendously valuable). It seems like the Argus II is still in the general size, shape, motion category, but even that would be a tremendous gain to someone that has lost their sight. I read this article http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/blind-vision-implant/ a couple of years ago. It talks about trying to go beyond capturing general size, shape, and motion in visual prosthetic by recoding the information to a more natural state. If the interface with the brain can be figured out, all kinds of possibilities will open up. Geordi Laforge's visor may be closer than we think.
It may have to do with the age of the buildings. For example, energy efficient windows are not a large incremental cost for new construction, but is a fairly decent expenditure on older construction. The cost payback for windows is typically very long in single family homes (I don't know about condos etc.). I know insulation in a single family home is very easy to install and has a good pay back rate (again I don't know about doing it for condos etc.). Weather stripping and sealing are cheap and easy to install all around (this one should be a no brainer). I suspect that installing central heating and AC comes down to the large upfront cost and space issues for the condos. I also suspect that apartments are like that because the land lords don't much care to make the improvements.
You are right and that is more what I was thinking. However, when I lived in DC, I had a near 1 hours commute that amounted to less than 20 miles. Another apartment I lived at the drive home was between 45 minutes and 1 hours 15 minutes and it was like 7 miles. I had colleagues in DC that used electric cars that did very well in the 1+ hour commute of stop and go traffic. When I lived in a mountain state away from big cities and metropolitan areas I commuted 1 hours 15 minutes but covered 56 miles, each way. It was also not uncommon for us to drive a few hundred miles in a day on the weekend.
Slashdot Mirror
It is very common for competition shooters to put a barrier in front of one eye while focusing on the target with the other (I don't find that it take conscious effort, and I only shoot like this randomly as I am not a competition shooter). This keeps them from having to have one eye closed for long periods which gets tiring. In the case of a shooter, your brain just forgets about the other eye while in that situation. If I place my finger close enough to my eye that the other one can't see it, I can't focus on it regardless of effort because it is too close. With shooting you are focusing on the farther object and forgetting the closer (and the barrier is far to close to focus on anyway), maybe that is an important distinction.
You may be saying this but for those unfamiliar with the set up, see the third picture in this link and the description (http://science.howstuffworks.com/apache-helicopter5.htm). It works with a monocular lens, the left eye never gets covered nor has the projected image.
The Target Acquisition and Designation Sights, Pilot Night Vision System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Acquisition_and_Designation_System,_Pilot_Night_Vision_System) for the AH-64 uses a single eye piece. So it seems like this type of thing can and has been done (and this one is pretty cool, it tracks the head movements of the pilot and points the 50 caliber cannon where he/she looks). The single eye piece doesn't seem to cause problems for the pilots that use these systems. Not saying I am interested in Google Glass, but they should have been able to figure out the problem discussed in the TFA.
Plus once you file the police report and are a suspect of identity theft you can freeze your credit for free (usually it costs up to $10 per agency per person depending on the state you live in). Freezing your credit is easy to do and essentially eliminates the possibility of someone starting credit in your name (unless they break into your house and take the codes you printed from the three credit bureaus after freezing your credit). There is a guide to freezing your credit on the website of a financial podcast I listen too (http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/personal-finance-credit/credit-freeze-and-thaw-guide/nFbL/). You can also check on your credit for free once each year at the following website https://www.annualcreditreport.com/cra/index.jsp (I recommend checking one of the three every 4 months).
And good films. However, it is only possible to make money on those when people in other industries are employed and have disposable income. These jobs are secondary effects of others having money to spend on them. It is maslow's hierarchy of needs, if everyone else is broke they can't and won't buy the media. Some will turn to piracy and some will just do without. You can't create jobs or support an economy with a circle of media industry workers buying each others stuff. By necessity there needs to be other people involved. If the law makers wanted to help, they would work on improving the economy. With more disposable income in the hands of the masses, media sales would increase. If the media industry wanted to help they could improve the quality of their product and/or lower prices (I feel like there is not nearly as many good movies any more, but maybe it is just because I am getting older). While "strengthening" the IP protections of artists may prevent some people from pirating media, I don't think this is the big problem. I'm not sure I know any adults in the work force that pirate stuff. Most just buy the things that they think are worth the price and don't bother with the other stuff.
I am used to just calling it KAPL (I worked in the "program" too) but got to typing quickly. Did you know the authors?
I missed Ni64, thanks. But it isn't obvious that it is a better choice that Ni62. Ni62 has a larger neutron cross section and higher abundance than Ni64. But who knows if cross section means anything in this scenario, especially after you hit this stuff with 30THz.
I agree that it happens and by people who do know better.
All kinds of information nuclear reactions and decay is available in "Nuclides and Isotopes", a chart of the nuclides published by KAPL (Knowles Atomic Power Laboratory). I recommend the "chart" in book form as it comes with a bunch of nuclear physics discussion. Based on the description in the article Ni+n=Cu+e. There is only one stable isotope of Ni that has a chance of going through this process and resulting in a stable isotope of copper and that is Ni62. Ni62 is only 3.63% of naturally occurring nickle. The most abundant isotope is Ni58 (68.07%) and it will go to Ni59 with addition of a neutron and will beta decay to Co59. Ni59 has a 7600 year half life so you could continue to change it to Ni60 then Ni61 then Ni62, but all of this wouldn't happen instantaneously as stated in the article (I guess you could start an enrichment plant so you are only using Ni62, but that cost a lot of money and energy and would have to be factored into the energy balance of the final "reactor"). These types of reactions don't take place in nature because the stable isotopes are already at the bottom of the "valley of stability" (have a minimum mass or maximum binding energy, see pages 27-28 of the 16th edition of the "Nuclides and Isotopes"). I guess it is possible that the 30THz vibrations change the local laws of physics, but I will remain skeptical until there is more than speculation. The article states, "LENR is a very long way from the day when you can go out and buy a home nuclear reactor. In fact, it still has to be proven that the phenomenon even exists, but hundreds of experiments worldwide indicate that heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input do take place with yields of 10 to 100 watts." TFA states that they are not even sure if the phenomenon exists and it doesn't provide the total energy input to the system so you can't tell if 10-100W is noise or error in the measuring equipment (this is one of the things that was going on in the cold fusion of years past).
Agreed, but even "less pollution than X" can be misleading. It is difficult to compare different types of pollution on an apples to apples basis. For example, how much carbon released into the atmosphere given a certain amount of cyanide that seeps into the ground from cyanide heap leaching? But at least that discussion would get the facts on the table. I would argue that the word "clean" isn't always used with a negative motive, but it is likely that the person using it doesn't have an in-depth enough knowledge of the subject to say anything else (in which case maybe they shouldn't be talking). Remember Hanlon's razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
The city I live in has about 60K people. It is entirely powered by 90+Mwe from a small series of hydro plants. After the efficiency conversion of about 1/3 the electrical output from the 250 Mwt would be about enough to do it. Not to shabby to be able to power a 50K person city. I love nuclear but if this is for real it shouldn't be trivialized.
Clean depends on the definition. There is a waste product associated with every kind of industrial process and every kind of energy production. But the forms of the waste are not all the same nor are they equivalent. Many time people equate the term clean to the quantity of carbon produced during the energy production. If this new technology is viable and it actually contains 99% of the carbon that is a HUGE development. The mining process could be improved and much of the eye sore can be avoided if you don't strip mine. I think there is a town in Pennsylvania that has been "on-fire" since the 50s or 60s because an underground coal fire was not contained.
It isn't libertarian economics it real life experience from my brothers stores. And there is nothing I said that would contradict your two points. Prices are set to maximize revenues, I agree. My point was it CAN'T raise prices without driving away the business, notice the parenthetical note I left. Businesses already have the minimum number of employees to maintain the required service level, I agree. They CAN'T let people go without it affecting the quality of the product. You comment is based on the assumption that there is sufficient profit margin for the store owners to take it out of hide. Look at the numbers that I put in the post, the margins don't have much room to support this. For those businesses that have slim margins, prices will go up or or quality will go down. Why make a point based on market economics and then promptly ignore the consequences? Remember, you can't give something to someone that doesn't have it without first taking it from someone who does. Classic Liberal economics, I will take from those that have to give to those that don't.
You probably should note that it is about 500 passenger-miles per gallon (pmpg), not miles per gallon (mpg). The table shows that the train itself gets 1.25 miles per gallon. Still very efficient when compared to other transportation.
I would be up for the extension. The waste isn't a problem if our they would open the national repository.
I call dibs on the patent for using expandable tissue in the thorax, driven by a remotely controlled diaphragm, to re-oxygenate blood and sustain life. While I am at it I will patent atmospheric gases within a specific range of concentrations on the surface of rocks orbiting around stars. Complete BS.
I am not in favor of patents on genes. I think it is unjustified and immoral. I think methods of detection of certain types of genes may be warranted if the test method is something new that isn't already in use for other genes. It must be more than "use of gene detection method X to find gene BRCA1," where X is a established method. Even if the test is novel, I think there should be some kind of equivalent to FRAND licensing that is required to obtain the patent on the test. Seems to me that the human genome is a "standard essential" to life.
I would love to see these kinds of solutions work too and stem cells just rock. I think both types of research will provide valuable information and exciting possibilities. Whichever one can restore/provide sight first is great. Who knows there may be some kinds of problems where each solution is superior to the other (whether it be cost, performance, risk, etc.). Even if the brain interface work and electronics aren't really used for vision issues in the future, the methods may become applicable in other areas like robotic prosthesis that connect to the brain.
I rode my bike to work for 3 years at that job because driving was so bad. I only did it occasionally for that precise reason (maybe once every couple of months).
It depends on the situation but I don't I don't think an hour in stop and go traffic will deplete the batteries of even current generation electric cars (see http://auto.howstuffworks.com/can-electric-cars-survive-major-traffic-jams.htm). The Nissan leaf normally has a 100 mile radius, under ideal conditions that wouldn't have covered the round trip commute for my last job, 56 miles (I lived out west in the mountains and there was no traffic). The link states that stop and go traffic on a cold day reduced the range to 62 miles. That is still several hours of stop and go traffic. In DC, for example that would allow a round trip to a location about 20 miles outside the beltway (last time I lived there that would put you on about an hour and a half commute each way). I think it would be safe to say that if your one way commute is less than 25 miles or less than 2 hours, you are probably OK with an all electric car. However, if your one way commute is greater than 25 miles or 2 hours, you probably need a hybrid or gasoline car. I can't speak for NYC but in DC the majority of people who commuted into the district itself lived within the shorter limit.
I hope that eventually we get to the point where full sight can be restored for all blind individuals. However, there are many reasons for blindness and this one will probably only help with those caused by problems with the by the retina (at least in the near term, long term all of this research will be tremendously valuable). It seems like the Argus II is still in the general size, shape, motion category, but even that would be a tremendous gain to someone that has lost their sight. I read this article http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/blind-vision-implant/ a couple of years ago. It talks about trying to go beyond capturing general size, shape, and motion in visual prosthetic by recoding the information to a more natural state. If the interface with the brain can be figured out, all kinds of possibilities will open up. Geordi Laforge's visor may be closer than we think.
Another advantage of becoming more efficient is you need fewer new generating facilities to break the cycle and get to ~0 emissions.
It may have to do with the age of the buildings. For example, energy efficient windows are not a large incremental cost for new construction, but is a fairly decent expenditure on older construction. The cost payback for windows is typically very long in single family homes (I don't know about condos etc.). I know insulation in a single family home is very easy to install and has a good pay back rate (again I don't know about doing it for condos etc.). Weather stripping and sealing are cheap and easy to install all around (this one should be a no brainer). I suspect that installing central heating and AC comes down to the large upfront cost and space issues for the condos. I also suspect that apartments are like that because the land lords don't much care to make the improvements.
You are right and that is more what I was thinking. However, when I lived in DC, I had a near 1 hours commute that amounted to less than 20 miles. Another apartment I lived at the drive home was between 45 minutes and 1 hours 15 minutes and it was like 7 miles. I had colleagues in DC that used electric cars that did very well in the 1+ hour commute of stop and go traffic. When I lived in a mountain state away from big cities and metropolitan areas I commuted 1 hours 15 minutes but covered 56 miles, each way. It was also not uncommon for us to drive a few hundred miles in a day on the weekend.
Yes, that is what I meant.