I'm not an Alzheimer's scientist and I haven't studied it at all. What I can tell you is that the intensity of infrared light that would penetrate the skin, the skull, and finally reach the brain would be so low that it could be considered negligible. Transmittance decreases exponentially in the presence of water and I doubt any significant amount of radiation would even penetrate the person's scalp.
I wrote an extensive (52 page) paper on terahertz radiation (spectra between the microwave and infrared frequencies), and I can tell you, absolutely, that this is bullshit.
Infrared radiation is commonly thought of as heat because it is absorbed so readily by the water in your body. Near the microwave region, there are several frequency windows that can penetrate several millimeters of biological tissue, but several millimeters is not very far.
At higher frequencies, the transmittance is even worse--there are practically no band windows that can be used for effective transmission, even when transmitting through the atmosphere where water content is much less. This is why terahertz imaging is still in research and development--stronger emitters and more sensitive detectors are needed due to atmospheric absorption.
If an alzheimer's treatment is to be effective with this technique, the radiation will have to penetrate more than a few millimeters of brain tissue. In fact, I suspect that this radiation must penetrate throughout the entire brain. Infrared frequencies simply cannot do that, and they never will.
Why should I be forced to pay, at gunpoint, for some poor guy's health care? What are those taxes doing for me? The original purpose of taxes were not to redistribute wealth, but to provide basic community services such as police protection and national defense. Taxes are not supposed to be taken entirely from one group to support another.
Terahertz imaging is the obvious solution for this because it can see right through clothing, detecting plastic and metal objects, without the sacrifice in resolution that has plagued microwave-based imagers. Plus, many explosives, such as RDX (C-4) and dynamite, reflect a tell-tale signature that can be detected by time-domain spectroscopy. Additionally, a terahertz scanner could scan the entire room at one time, eliminating the need for the gateway arch you wait in line for today. Couple this technology together with a computer that will flag down any explosives or drugs that it may find and you have a winning system that beats anything else.
The military is expecting major advances in Terahertz technology within three to five years. This has major implications for ground-based radar (think IEDs in Iraq), due to the technology's ability to "see" under six inches of damp soil (and deeper in dry, desert-like soil).
Folks, this technology will win the war in Iraq and end all notions of the right to privacy. When you've got superman's x-ray vision, there aint no part of your body that will remain private.
~Andrew
The US constitution grants the vast majority of American's rights and freedoms, so when these are attacked the constitution is always cited. There are sections in there that grant all rights not mentioned (or thought of at the time of writing) to the people and the states -- not the federal government. So even if a violation is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, the constitution can still be used as a defense (ambiguous to be sure, but it works as a potential argument when the government tries to assert an authority it shouldn't have).
So you would handicap our troops with even more "Rules of Engagement?" Incredible. When will you people realize that civilian casualties are a part of war? So now you can't shoot into a building unless all the civilians are evacuated? Why don't we just let terrorists use civilians as human shields? We better not engage the terrorists because someone might get hurt... Get where I'm going with this?
I'll be frank, you are way off base here. I think the reason many geeks are libertarians is because they are aware of this country's MASSIVE deficit and because whenever the economy fails, geeks are always the first to be given pink slips. Simply put, scientists, engineers, and technicians are highly acquainted with mathematics and this makes them sensitive to big numbers in economics. Anyone with an understanding of compound interest, and a healthy dose of non-apathy, is almost certainly a fiscal conservative. How can you shrug off the trillions of dollars of national debt? Reaganomics need not apply, this deficit is real, it is growing unbelievably, and it *WILL* collapse our economy. It is scary stuff.
Why are these countries developing space programs at all? Considering that these programs are a massive money sink, this must be an attempt to show the world that China and Russia are still world powers. Setting up a moon base before the U.S. would be a boon to either country's prestige, effectively telling the world that the U.S. is no longer #1 in space flight. Should be interesting to see if a U.S. political response develops. We could very well be seeing the next space race unfolding.
The feather reentry technique is only useful at suborbital speeds. How do you expect the spacecraft to slow down to these speeds? The only option is to use the underside of the shuttle as a heat shield as it is barreling through our atmosphere. What other options are there? You can't use a fuel burn because that would enormously increase the launch weight, and therefore the cost, of every mission. The shuttle was designed by some of the best aerospace engineers in the world. I'm sure every crazy reentry option was on the table during the design phase and they chose the one best suited for the job.
From the link in your comment: "If a woman scientist is worth more to the university and to society than a male scientist, she should be paid more."
Reading that line at the end made me lose respect for the author. Females are not worth more - they are worth equal. When will women understand that to be equal means to be equal? That means equal salaries, equal benefits (including maternity/paternity leave), equal right to register for the selective service, equal rights over children, and most of all an equal right to lost cost education. Women should not be paid to attend college just because she has a taco and hooters. The article was so good at first, and yet so absurd at last.
Do you believe the D.A. in the Duke case needs to be disbarred? If so, how does that help the boys whose character and reputation he destroyed, not to mention their suspension from Duke University because of his actions.
Yes and if the case is overturned on appeal, then obviously something went wrong. All I'm saying is that if prosecutors go after someone for fictitious violations or anything that goes against the grain of common sense, and that is proven on appeal, then that prosecutor should be liable for damages. As our system currently stands, prosecutors are effectively shielded by the very argument that you present.
If prosecutors COULD be charged, they might be fearful and that would have consequences. The question is, is the presence fear in the mind of the prosecution a good thing or a bad thing?
that prosecutors are allowed to get away with this sort of abuse in the first place. If for every case that is overturned the prosecutor is required to pay a hefty fine to the defendant for wasting their time and messing with their reputation, we might not have to deal with these kinds of cases in the first place. The D.A. in the Duke rape case needs to be strung up by the balls and give those boys everything he owns in restitution.
We all agree that the prosecution has wronged the teacher in this case, so the question is--what do slashdotters think should be done about it?
This notion of simply "growing a pair" when you're constantly getting "kicked in the pair" seems like an impossible endeavor. Job candidates are real people with real self-doubts and real self-assurances. How are you missing this?
The entire corporate culture is screwed up. Workers are entitled to respect and there are consequences for violating it. But in this day and age of corporate corruption, it's perfectly acceptable to be evil. When your PR starts getting bad, just remember all those times you were rude to potential hires.
It's my perrogative as an employer to hire the people I want to work with and build a team the way I think it will be more efficient.
I agree absolutely. When a coach has to pick the players on his team, he picks those he thinks will "mesh" with the rest of the group.
What I believe the problem slashdotters have with your post is whether you are hiring personalities based exclusively on outgoingness and (dare I say it) extroverted habits or if you might consider the more typical introverted slashdot personality in a viable candidate.
It scares me to death to think that employers may be prejudiced based on personality. I am an introvert like many of my fellow slashdotters, but I can speak up when need be even though I may still come off as softspoken. In other words, I'm not salesman material at all, which I hope wont be needed in my future career as some sort of technician or engineer.
All other concerns aside, would you automatically disqualify or hold it against the candidate for having an introverted personality like the one I described? If yes, would you consider your line of business exclusive to extroverts only?
Holy cow indeed! I like to think that most employers are good people who value those who work under them, but if this is the norm an employee would get better use from a hole in the head.
First off, using intimidating tactics such as snickering over someone's shoulder at their sloppy code seems degrading to me. I had a boss who would stomp his foot in back of me while I'm coding, and when I would turn around to see what he wanted he might rudely say, "get back to work!" IMHO employers should ALWAYS be upfront with employees within a structured, emotionally neutral environment. For an employer to manipulate emotion in the workplace to me seems like total malicious bullshit. Why not just have a code review within a structured environment - having the employee explain why he did things the way he did? Is there really any reason to use intimidating tactics at all? How do you think large corporations do things?
Second, you promise training in the interview to justify a lower than average wage, but then you say that you don't want to directly teach them how to do code to your specifications in the first place. If you are hiring at a less than average wage, it seems to me you're probably hiring those fresh out of college who would appreciate the promise of extra training you give in the interview. Is this not the same group of people who could benefit the most from direct input and guidance from someone more experienced?
One of my first tech jobs was for a web design firm who hired me on at minimum wage (I was 17), which I accepted because of the hands on training in graphics and PHP I was promised. I stayed with that job for two years and worked tirelessly because I was thankful not only for the training, but also the professional friendships that come about from being a respected member of a team. However, there were times my boss made me feel less than respected, which hampered things more than they helped. Our team leader was much more supportive and never rude in any way. I enjoyed working because I believed in the team.
My view is that employers should treat their employees as they want their employees to treat them. Mutual respect (which does not include standing over someone's shoulder - jeez) can be conducive to the "team atmosphere" and may even make you a part of the team (the guy who gets us work) as opposed to just being "the boss". I would gladly work 110% for a team leader who I know has my interests at heart than for some slave driving boss who only knows me as just another expendable employee.
Steven Hawking did much of his remarkable work long before he became disabled. He isn't a very good analogy to make your point.
Now on to my opinion. I feel that the severely mentally handicapped should be educated in institutions that are better able to handle their special needs. The special needs programs in high schools are a logistical nightmare. If there were only one facility per county to handle these people, including room and board, the state could potentially save loads of money by centralizing the operations, eliminating the thousands of special needs staff positions needed in our schools, and reducing the bureaucracy involved in maintaining thousands of special needs programs. Also, this would free the existing special needs facilities for use as mainstream classrooms, which would reduce overall class size ever so slightly.
Why should the severely disabled be taught in mainstream schools anyway? Wouldn't a more specialized institution be better suited to their needs?
A planetary magnetic field requires one thing, and one thing only: moving electro-static charges. The moon could have a molten core and still produce no detectable magnetic field simply because the spin of the moon on it's axis is so low.
For instance, Venus lacks a magnetic field because its spin is extremely slow. One day on Venus is equal to 243 Earth days. Venus has a molten core comparable to the Earth, yet exhibits no significant magnetic field.
Want to create a tiny magnetic field yourself? Take your hair comb and wave it around in the air. If you moved the comb clockwise in front of you, you would produce a magnetic field that points directly away from your body. Don't forget the right-hand rule from physics!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an Alzheimer's scientist and I haven't studied it at all. What I can tell you is that the intensity of infrared light that would penetrate the skin, the skull, and finally reach the brain would be so low that it could be considered negligible. Transmittance decreases exponentially in the presence of water and I doubt any significant amount of radiation would even penetrate the person's scalp.
I wrote an extensive (52 page) paper on terahertz radiation (spectra between the microwave and infrared frequencies), and I can tell you, absolutely, that this is bullshit.
Infrared radiation is commonly thought of as heat because it is absorbed so readily by the water in your body. Near the microwave region, there are several frequency windows that can penetrate several millimeters of biological tissue, but several millimeters is not very far.
At higher frequencies, the transmittance is even worse--there are practically no band windows that can be used for effective transmission, even when transmitting through the atmosphere where water content is much less. This is why terahertz imaging is still in research and development--stronger emitters and more sensitive detectors are needed due to atmospheric absorption.
If an alzheimer's treatment is to be effective with this technique, the radiation will have to penetrate more than a few millimeters of brain tissue. In fact, I suspect that this radiation must penetrate throughout the entire brain. Infrared frequencies simply cannot do that, and they never will.
Why should I be forced to pay, at gunpoint, for some poor guy's health care? What are those taxes doing for me? The original purpose of taxes were not to redistribute wealth, but to provide basic community services such as police protection and national defense. Taxes are not supposed to be taken entirely from one group to support another.
Terahertz imaging is the obvious solution for this because it can see right through clothing, detecting plastic and metal objects, without the sacrifice in resolution that has plagued microwave-based imagers. Plus, many explosives, such as RDX (C-4) and dynamite, reflect a tell-tale signature that can be detected by time-domain spectroscopy. Additionally, a terahertz scanner could scan the entire room at one time, eliminating the need for the gateway arch you wait in line for today. Couple this technology together with a computer that will flag down any explosives or drugs that it may find and you have a winning system that beats anything else. The military is expecting major advances in Terahertz technology within three to five years. This has major implications for ground-based radar (think IEDs in Iraq), due to the technology's ability to "see" under six inches of damp soil (and deeper in dry, desert-like soil). Folks, this technology will win the war in Iraq and end all notions of the right to privacy. When you've got superman's x-ray vision, there aint no part of your body that will remain private. ~Andrew
The US constitution grants the vast majority of American's rights and freedoms, so when these are attacked the constitution is always cited. There are sections in there that grant all rights not mentioned (or thought of at the time of writing) to the people and the states -- not the federal government. So even if a violation is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, the constitution can still be used as a defense (ambiguous to be sure, but it works as a potential argument when the government tries to assert an authority it shouldn't have).
This is exactly what needs to be said! Thank you!
So you would handicap our troops with even more "Rules of Engagement?" Incredible. When will you people realize that civilian casualties are a part of war? So now you can't shoot into a building unless all the civilians are evacuated? Why don't we just let terrorists use civilians as human shields? We better not engage the terrorists because someone might get hurt... Get where I'm going with this?
I'll be frank, you are way off base here. I think the reason many geeks are libertarians is because they are aware of this country's MASSIVE deficit and because whenever the economy fails, geeks are always the first to be given pink slips. Simply put, scientists, engineers, and technicians are highly acquainted with mathematics and this makes them sensitive to big numbers in economics. Anyone with an understanding of compound interest, and a healthy dose of non-apathy, is almost certainly a fiscal conservative. How can you shrug off the trillions of dollars of national debt? Reaganomics need not apply, this deficit is real, it is growing unbelievably, and it *WILL* collapse our economy. It is scary stuff.
Why are these countries developing space programs at all? Considering that these programs are a massive money sink, this must be an attempt to show the world that China and Russia are still world powers. Setting up a moon base before the U.S. would be a boon to either country's prestige, effectively telling the world that the U.S. is no longer #1 in space flight. Should be interesting to see if a U.S. political response develops. We could very well be seeing the next space race unfolding.
The feather reentry technique is only useful at suborbital speeds. How do you expect the spacecraft to slow down to these speeds? The only option is to use the underside of the shuttle as a heat shield as it is barreling through our atmosphere. What other options are there? You can't use a fuel burn because that would enormously increase the launch weight, and therefore the cost, of every mission. The shuttle was designed by some of the best aerospace engineers in the world. I'm sure every crazy reentry option was on the table during the design phase and they chose the one best suited for the job.
~Andrew
Maybe it involves actually reading the post and checking if it has "if" in it somewhere.
I quoted it from appendix C.
From the article: If a woman scientist is worth more to the university and to society than a male scientist, she should be paid more.
And there's the quote.
For a man, I really am an excellent reader.
From the link in your comment: "If a woman scientist is worth more to the university and to society than a male scientist, she should be paid more."
Reading that line at the end made me lose respect for the author. Females are not worth more - they are worth equal. When will women understand that to be equal means to be equal? That means equal salaries, equal benefits (including maternity/paternity leave), equal right to register for the selective service, equal rights over children, and most of all an equal right to lost cost education. Women should not be paid to attend college just because she has a taco and hooters. The article was so good at first, and yet so absurd at last.
Do you believe the D.A. in the Duke case needs to be disbarred? If so, how does that help the boys whose character and reputation he destroyed, not to mention their suspension from Duke University because of his actions.
Yes and if the case is overturned on appeal, then obviously something went wrong. All I'm saying is that if prosecutors go after someone for fictitious violations or anything that goes against the grain of common sense, and that is proven on appeal, then that prosecutor should be liable for damages. As our system currently stands, prosecutors are effectively shielded by the very argument that you present.
If prosecutors COULD be charged, they might be fearful and that would have consequences. The question is, is the presence fear in the mind of the prosecution a good thing or a bad thing?
that prosecutors are allowed to get away with this sort of abuse in the first place. If for every case that is overturned the prosecutor is required to pay a hefty fine to the defendant for wasting their time and messing with their reputation, we might not have to deal with these kinds of cases in the first place. The D.A. in the Duke rape case needs to be strung up by the balls and give those boys everything he owns in restitution.
We all agree that the prosecution has wronged the teacher in this case, so the question is--what do slashdotters think should be done about it?
This notion of simply "growing a pair" when you're constantly getting "kicked in the pair" seems like an impossible endeavor. Job candidates are real people with real self-doubts and real self-assurances. How are you missing this?
The entire corporate culture is screwed up. Workers are entitled to respect and there are consequences for violating it. But in this day and age of corporate corruption, it's perfectly acceptable to be evil. When your PR starts getting bad, just remember all those times you were rude to potential hires.
It's my perrogative as an employer to hire the people I want to work with and build a team the way I think it will be more efficient.
I agree absolutely. When a coach has to pick the players on his team, he picks those he thinks will "mesh" with the rest of the group.
What I believe the problem slashdotters have with your post is whether you are hiring personalities based exclusively on outgoingness and (dare I say it) extroverted habits or if you might consider the more typical introverted slashdot personality in a viable candidate.
It scares me to death to think that employers may be prejudiced based on personality. I am an introvert like many of my fellow slashdotters, but I can speak up when need be even though I may still come off as softspoken. In other words, I'm not salesman material at all, which I hope wont be needed in my future career as some sort of technician or engineer.
All other concerns aside, would you automatically disqualify or hold it against the candidate for having an introverted personality like the one I described? If yes, would you consider your line of business exclusive to extroverts only?
Holy cow indeed! I like to think that most employers are good people who value those who work under them, but if this is the norm an employee would get better use from a hole in the head.
First off, using intimidating tactics such as snickering over someone's shoulder at their sloppy code seems degrading to me. I had a boss who would stomp his foot in back of me while I'm coding, and when I would turn around to see what he wanted he might rudely say, "get back to work!" IMHO employers should ALWAYS be upfront with employees within a structured, emotionally neutral environment. For an employer to manipulate emotion in the workplace to me seems like total malicious bullshit. Why not just have a code review within a structured environment - having the employee explain why he did things the way he did? Is there really any reason to use intimidating tactics at all? How do you think large corporations do things?
Second, you promise training in the interview to justify a lower than average wage, but then you say that you don't want to directly teach them how to do code to your specifications in the first place. If you are hiring at a less than average wage, it seems to me you're probably hiring those fresh out of college who would appreciate the promise of extra training you give in the interview. Is this not the same group of people who could benefit the most from direct input and guidance from someone more experienced?
One of my first tech jobs was for a web design firm who hired me on at minimum wage (I was 17), which I accepted because of the hands on training in graphics and PHP I was promised. I stayed with that job for two years and worked tirelessly because I was thankful not only for the training, but also the professional friendships that come about from being a respected member of a team. However, there were times my boss made me feel less than respected, which hampered things more than they helped. Our team leader was much more supportive and never rude in any way. I enjoyed working because I believed in the team.
My view is that employers should treat their employees as they want their employees to treat them. Mutual respect (which does not include standing over someone's shoulder - jeez) can be conducive to the "team atmosphere" and may even make you a part of the team (the guy who gets us work) as opposed to just being "the boss". I would gladly work 110% for a team leader who I know has my interests at heart than for some slave driving boss who only knows me as just another expendable employee.
Steven Hawking did much of his remarkable work long before he became disabled. He isn't a very good analogy to make your point.
Now on to my opinion. I feel that the severely mentally handicapped should be educated in institutions that are better able to handle their special needs. The special needs programs in high schools are a logistical nightmare. If there were only one facility per county to handle these people, including room and board, the state could potentially save loads of money by centralizing the operations, eliminating the thousands of special needs staff positions needed in our schools, and reducing the bureaucracy involved in maintaining thousands of special needs programs. Also, this would free the existing special needs facilities for use as mainstream classrooms, which would reduce overall class size ever so slightly.
Why should the severely disabled be taught in mainstream schools anyway? Wouldn't a more specialized institution be better suited to their needs?
A planetary magnetic field requires one thing, and one thing only: moving electro-static charges. The moon could have a molten core and still produce no detectable magnetic field simply because the spin of the moon on it's axis is so low. For instance, Venus lacks a magnetic field because its spin is extremely slow. One day on Venus is equal to 243 Earth days. Venus has a molten core comparable to the Earth, yet exhibits no significant magnetic field. Want to create a tiny magnetic field yourself? Take your hair comb and wave it around in the air. If you moved the comb clockwise in front of you, you would produce a magnetic field that points directly away from your body. Don't forget the right-hand rule from physics!