Comment: Re:Since it's not by Packt... (Score 1) 33
I can't figure out if you used "for all intensive purposes" ironically, or if you really don't realize it's "for all intents and purposes".
Argh.
Comment: Re:I'm so (NOT!) surprised.. (Score 1) 487
Isn't sunlight radiation?
Comment: Re:Deja Vue-Meaning You're Wrong Again (Score 1) 391
Subtle!
Comment: Re:why not use it in space? (Score 1) 196
He winced because vacuum doesn't have a temperature. You have to have something to heat up before you can measure its heat.
A telescope in Earth's orbit would receive just as much solar radiation when not eclipsed by the Earth's shadow as some point directly beneath the Sun on the Earth's surface -- more, because Earth's atmosphere scatters and reflects a lot of the radiation.
Invisibility Cloak Created In 3-D 113
Posted
by
kdawson
from the can-you-see-me-now dept.
from the can-you-see-me-now dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Scientists have created the first device to render an object invisible in three dimensions. The 'cloak,' described in the journal Science (abstract; full text requires login), hid an object from detection using light of wavelengths close to those that are visible to humans. Previous devices have been able to hide objects from light travelling in only one direction; viewed from any other angle, the object would remain visible. This is a very early but significant step towards a true invisibility cloak." The "object" hidden in this work was a bump one micrometer high. The light used was just longer than the wavelengths our eyes detect. To get a visible-light cloak, the features of the cloaking metamaterial would need to be reduced in size from 300 nm to 10 nm.
Comment: Re:Government should not compete (Score 1) 269
Blue Oyster Cult sigs FTW. That's all.
Comment: Re:I Don't Even Care Anymore (Score 1) 585
... and it had about as much to do with its parent story as "Blade Runner" did to "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".
Comment: Re:Put George W. Bush in charge of Apple (Score 0, Flamebait) 399
And he's had plenty experience getting rid of jobs already!
Comment: What we need is a Rebuttal-pedia (Score 2) 428
Here's the million-dollar idea. Make Rebuttal-pedia, a place where Jason Lanier and people like him can post their side of the story, and it can then be used a source for Wikipedia articles.
Cop's RADAR vs Driver's GPS - which is right?-> 5
Submitted
by
martyb
martyb writes "ars technica has a story up about a driver who claims his speeding ticket should be thrown out because his GPS proves the police officer's radar was wrong. (AP version of the story here.)
The accused 17-year-old, Shaun Malone, has an ace up his sleeve: his step-dad is retired deputy Roger Rude. Rude encouraged Shaun to fight the ticket after the log he downloaded using software provided by the GPS unit's Colorado-based supplier showed Shaun was going the speed limit within 100 feet of where a Petaluma officer clocked him speeding.
Link to Original Source
"Radar is a pretty good tool, but it's not an infallible tool," said Rude, who spent 31 years in law enforcement. "With the GPS tracker, there is no doubt about it. There is no human interference."
Petaluma police Lt. John Edwards said he could not discuss Shaun's case but disputed Rude's contention that GPS is more accurate than a speed gun."GPS works on satellite signals, so you have a delay of some type," Edwards said. "Is it a couple-second delay? A 30-second delay? Because in that time people can speed up, slow down."
Which would YOU believe? Any suggestions on what Shaun could do to help defend himself?"Link to Original Source