Comment Re:Guilty (Score 1, Informative) 102
And you know, of conspiring to commit murder. People seem to forget that part.
And you know, of conspiring to commit murder. People seem to forget that part.
Again: so?
We've reached monitor parity. We reached it because TV improved and there's no point trying to maintain a difference for difference's sake.
But the vertical height argument is just rubbish. People run 16:9 and 16:10 screens vertical all the time, and no one was ever going to be manufacturing giant squares which physically wouldn't fit on a desktop. 4K and the like is going to sell principally to the computer market first because lord knows there's little need for it in home theatre for most people.
Because it is a force? A force is anything which transfers momentum and energy around. Which gravity does.
Moreover, what seems so obvious to you that gravity is the curvature of space time? What does that mean? Because it is in no way obvious. For example, if gravity is spacetime curvature, then it doesn't really pull on things in 4D spacetime since we've already defined it away. So why do things appear to move down gravitational wells? Are they elastically colliding with a sheet of space time? Why aren't they normally deflected by it?
Finally, it doesn't matter what new theory shows something is or isn't. It has to verify old theory. And old theory says that gravity looks and acts, in the human range of experience, like a conventional force identical to any other. So whatever it is, it has to be simply back down to confirming our everyday experience.
Which is why I presume they've been shutting off cell towers in areas with protests
Or you know, someone in China buys popular phones en masse, swaps the baseband chip with a blank one, and resells them on ebay for less then they cost in the US to start with.
And
Err no, it would be because you can pickup 3 1200p mo itors, flip them vertical, ane have all the real estate you need for under $1000. Computers weren't 'not important enough' - TV finally got not terrible enough.
We have those ultrasound acoustic weapons - highly directional noise projectors. Presumably the volume of wildlife isn't very high, so you could watch the sky with a camera and then direct some sound which they treat as "fly away from" at any birds which crossed over a safe zone. Most nearby wildlife would quickly figure out where not to go.
Look at ITER: $20B and rising, it will only make 500 MW(th) -- six times less thermal energy than a 1 GW(e) fission reactor -- and it doesn't even include the advanced materials needed to withstand commercial reactor levels of integrated neutron flux.
Well, that's ITER's point now isn't it? We know what is required to make fusion work, we just don't know how long we can sustain a reaction because we do not understand how the large neutron flux will affect the materials in the container and we still have difficulties maintaining the containment. It's an engineering problem now, not something that is clearly impossible.
IMHO, investments in such experiments should be expanded, by both government and industry. Just like getting a man on the moon, We need a JFK'esk commitment to making this work.
ITER is also heavily instrumented and represents the design prototype for power generation. It's successor - DEMO - is expected to be bigger, but cheaper, because the design will be known, the manufacturing for the parts will be understood, and it won't include the scientific instrumentation since it'll be a power generating reactor, not an experiment.
No. No it isn't, and literally every single thing you wrote is either factually wrong, or completely unrelated to what I was saying.
Also have fun waiting 20 minutes for your microtransaction to clear.
The alternative answer is simpler: I simply don't care enough about most content providers to mourn or want to prevent their passing. They shut down, some other group opens up, better luck next time convincing me you aren't completely disposable. This is what newspapers are slowly discovering: the pay walls go up, and then you realize that they basically just report whatever is on someone's blog anyway.
It's a freaking port scan. It is not a denial of service attack. It is not remotely illegal and any private citizen is legally allowed to exactly the same and many researchers do without any need for special permissions.
This article could not possibly be any more pathetically sensationalist.
And so we circle back around to the rather thorough explanation given elsewhere in the comments on why you can't even get remotely close to computer simulations of biological systems, let alone infectious agents.
You clearly don't understand the field, its techniques or limitations because you've just dismissed literally every single molecular biology research technique and have just dismissed the vast majority of modern experimental methods.
You would also have to completely model host organisms and their immediate environments.
Does this suggest you would be in favor of trying out this virus? Not on yourself of course, but on some other human in a city, as that would be the one and only way to determine how it works inside a human body and spreads?
I am not.
The information gained is valuable enough that it is worth the minor risk involved in gaining it.
The risk is not minor, it is pandemic.
And so once again: you have no idea how biological research works. Like you do realize tissue culture is a thing right? That you grow up viruses in suspensions of cells in a petri dish and study them, or in the case of this research (which is stated, plainly, in both the article and abstract of the paper) they infected mice and ferrets with the virus to study the effects.
Seems pretty obvious you didn't try and click through to the freely available abstract, which explains exactly why they did this. It's linked in the article in the OP (who notably also probably didn't read it).
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
