This is the same basic result as a previous article:
The structure in the current article is a ring resonator in this article. In the previous article the structure was a grating based resonator.
I found an article with better information:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=optical-force-gradient
My guess is it's Michal Lipson's group:
This is different than acousto-optics. There is no outside force here; all the movement is generated by the light itself. The miniscule amount of force from the light is enough to excite a resonance in the mechanical structure. The structure is both resonant to light and to acoustics. The two resonances are coupled because as the structure moves, the optical resonance shifts a little bit.
It is really cool work, but I haven't figured out what it'll be useful for.
I've had the whole house on CFLs for years now and they light *instantly*.
The standard fixture CFL's (A19 replacements) I've bought have all been pretty good. They start up fast (except in cold weather) with enough light output that I don't mind that it's not 100%. However, I've tried flood light replacements, and they all stink. I might as well light a candle for all the light they output when I turn them on. It takes a good couple minutes before they reach a reasonable light level, and another few minutes before they reach close to the advertised amount of light.
Use the right tool for the job.
I agree -
2-D Platformers and most classic games -> d-pad, joystick, or keyboard (my preference is joystick, but I'm an old-timer)
3-D Platformers -> modern console (except Wii)
First person shooter -> mouse and keyboard
Real time strategy -> mouse and keyboard
Flight simulator -> joystick and keyboard (unless you spring for a more involved setup)
Driving -> steering wheel and pedals.
Rhythm -> unique controllers - here the controller basically is the game, and the games are differentiated primarily by the controller.
Wii -> Motion controllers like these are still in their infancy. Wii Sports, etc., hints at what's to come.
I second another post that comments that modern console controllers (Wii, not withstanding) are jacks of all trades, masters of none. They work reasonable well for a huge gamete of game types, but I think 3-D platformer is the only game type that I think they are the best choice for.
I also think that for most games, simpler controls are better. Fewer buttons, less complicated maneuvers all allow the game to picked up quickly by a large number of people. Some people really enjoy mastering complicated controls, and that's fine. I just don't think that complicated controls make games fun for the majority of people.
"They" say being slightly overweight leads to a longer life than "normal" weight. Perhaps the reality is "they've" defined normal a little too low.
There's definitely some truth to that statement. In addition, there's a natural tendency for people to gain weight as they get older. In our youth obsessed culture thin=young=good, which may not actually be true.
I think the real reason having a little extra weight is beneficial is that it helps if you get seriously ill. If you are very sick, you might not be able to eat for weeks. Having that extra storage of energy is essential to fight off the illness and get better.
If you are seriously overweight, the added complications of carrying that weight outweigh (no pun intended) any benefit.
Show some evidence even for an effect in the brain which can't possibly be accounted for by everything we currently understand about it, and people might be more willing to believe your ludicrous claims.
Simple. The fact that I (and you, too) am aware of our existence. We can argue about free will, but perhaps more important is the perception of free will, or indeed any will at all.
(Not that I necessarily agree with the grandparent's ludicrous claims, either).
I generally agree with you. This is absolutely the fairest solution. However, I think those who oppose gay marriage will then say "Why do I need to give up anything?" I don't agree with them, but that's what you'll hear.
One of the strongest arguments for gay marriage is "who is it hurting?" By causing a change in traditional marriage people can then actually point to something. (People point to something now, but most of those arguments are, quite frankly, bogus).
Jews of course have the right to pray. In a church.
Of course, that does not match their personal preference, but then again having your preferences catered to by the state isn't something you can count on when you are a distinct minority.
---
Of course, Jews are allowed to pray in a synagogue because we have separation of church and state. But, imagine if we had a state church, and they weren't? My statement would then be just as accurate, and just as wrong.
Ah, the old polygamy straw man argument.
Legally speaking, all of marriage laws (inheritance, sharing resources, etc.) assume a contract between two people. Can you imagine the legal mess we'd have if marriages were between 3 or me people? Imagine what custody battles, etc. would be like. The courts would be incredible bogged down trying to sort all the issues out. For same sex marriages, all the current laws and precedents are just fine, since the laws pertaining to marriage are already gender neutral. (Well, except for the laws about who can marry who).
Practically speaking, polygamy is unstable. People don't share wives/husbands well. It would be very rare for such unions to last. In the past, polygamy only worked because the women were, in effect, owned by the men. Today, there aren't many people who would choose to enter a union with multiple wives/husbands, as long as we enforce equality. Do you really want to loose 2/3 of your assets (and pay twice the alimony) if you get divorced?
No, I'm sorry, polygamy is a legal mess, and no one (except a few crazies) is asking for it anyway. That's completely different than same sex marriages where there are plenty asking for it, and there are no significant legal issues.
I'm a little late to this party, but this was one of the better and more balanced posts I read. I do have some comments, and a question.
Through the 1920's, Jews and Palestinians lived relatively peaceful co-existence in Palestine under British Rule (where the Jewish Population was roughly 10%).
Is that 10% number for all of the Mandate of Palestine, (this would include Jordan), the biblical border of Israel, or within the green line border?
In any case, from the Palestinian point of view, it certainly seams that they were kicked off their land after an influx of Jews. However, what is always ignored in these discussions is that a similar number of Jews were kicked out of Arab countries (and into Israel) following the formation of Israel. A more regional point of view would say that the Jews and Arabs simply separated their populations. The Jews welcomed their brothers, while the Arabs told their brothers to rot until maybe one day the Arabs can take back the land that they were forced out of (and that all Middle Eastern Jews were forced onto). Remember, for nearly 20 years after Israel was formed, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were under the control of Egypt and Jordan.
But, as you said, the Palestinians were kicked off their land in a war and naturally they want it back. They could care less about the Jews that may have been forced out of Arab countries. They are indeed victims in this. I, however, disagree that Israel is on the wrong side of this. I don't blame the Jews for wanting a safe place, and fighting for Israel. Particularly, after what history has done to them. As you said, the Jews wanted a safe place place to call their own, and that necessitating taking land from someone. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, they were that someone.
Yes, I get your analogy about fighting to take back Missouri if it was taken away. But you know what? The Palestinians aren't the first refuges to occur on this planet, and they won't be the last. Can't we just find a way to make their lives better and move on. If you were to fight for Missouri when you have no realistic chance to win, instead of looking for a better life, I'd think you were idiot.
The Palestinians can either continue to beat their chests, and try to make Israel miserable. (Which will just make themselves even more miserable). Or, they can try to put this behind them and try to create the best future they can for themselves. Yes, Israel doesn't make it easy for them, and they may feel they are entitled to more. However, like it or not, Israel is stronger than them. They'll likely only be able to prosper in the future with Israel's help. Call me crazy, but I think Israel is much more likely to be helpful if they stop calling for Israel's destruction.
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
