This graph explains very clearly how far away we are, and why it is taking so long. The reality is, with all the cheap coal (and natural gas), it's just not a priority. Besides, environmentalists hate nuclear so it's not a political winner to fund it. This story is good, too.
That looks like a graph that says 'fusion researchers want more money.' I want more money, too.
If I go to the source report, will it tell me:
1) the technical challenges they face?
2) if they're engineering problems requiring great expenditures?
3) If they're scientific research problems with uncertain outcomes?
4) If the research for a #3 problem involves a massive #2 effort?
There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.
You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.
Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.
Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.
That does not necessarily mean that their suffering is all in their mind because what a person believes or thinks can sometimes have real, measurable effects on their physiology. Although I think that what it does mean is that EM sensitivity needs to be treated as a psychological matter rather than physiological one.
Neither is forming conclusions when comparing apples and oranges.
You compare the raw numbers of intentional car crashes to intentional plane crashes, but the number of all car crashes is much greater than the number of all plane crashes. And the number of car trips is much greater than the number of plane trips.
It might have been fine to compare percentages, but not raw numbers.
Numerous double blind studies have conclusively shown that such sensitivity ultimately depends on what the subject *believes* to be true, regardless of whether or not it actually is. Whether she would still "sense" anything inside of the Faraday cage actually depends on whether or not she genuinely believes the Faraday cage will truly stop the signals she believes are harming her, and whether or not she believes those signals to be present.
In other words, its all psychosomatic.... and should be treated as such. Psychosomatic disorders can still produce externally measurable changes in a person's body, so the suffering can still be legitimately real, and so I would not think that being simply dismissive of it is necessarily the best approach, but probably psychological help would be for the best so that she can learn how to recognize the false signals that her brain is telling her about, and perhaps eventually overcome the dysfunction.
All available evidence on Electromagnetic sensitivity suggests that is actually a purely psychosomatic disorder, but belief is tremendously powerful thing and can produce real and measurable physiological changes in a person, causing immune reactions without any externally visible cause, change in hormone levels that should otherwise only be explainable by other external phenomonena, etc.
Treating serious psychosomatic disorders requires the person to not just be aware that the problem is all in their own mind, but it also requires that a person be aware of some pathway to a solution to their apparent problem. I have heard it best described by one psychologist as (althouh I am paraphrasing here, this is not a direct quote) "there's nothing actually wrong with your hardware, but basically the software in your brain is misfiring and telling your body the wrong thing.". A person with a psychosomatic disorder needs to learn a skill that is not necessarily easy to come by, and that is to learn how to ignore those essentially false signals that their brain is telling their own body, and causing it to react in ways that might otherwise be attributed to some external phenomena. This is why the person needs psychiatric help.
Simply telling an EHS sufferer that it's just all in their own head and they should be able to simply think their way out of their problem is only going to get you ignored, because their body may still be producing a real reaction to something, even if that something is only imagined.
I'm dismayed that in CS that the academic community is putting so much emphasis on replication and not enough on robust reproducibility.
From my experience, the academic community puts no emphasis on either. I think it would be neat to study a paper and attempt to reproduce the results, but that doesn't get me a journal paper in today's academic landscape.
No, the ads just move out of ad spaces into 'native' space, embedded with content and interspersed into feeds and streams.
Or the adverts become articles, with no indication that they are sponsored. One newspaper website that I read has a "monthly limit" (not effective when you use private browsing) of 10 pages. But even after this limit is reached, some articles can still be read. I assume that the the newspaper is receving payment when someone reads the article. However, there is nothing to indicate that the article is an ad, or sponsored.
If mathematically you end up with the wrong answer, try multiplying by the page number.