Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I was able to sneak into their laboratories (Score 1) 156

tell me, I read (yes) the Daily Mail article, read the linked one to the Independant and then submitted with the DM one as it was better, even though it had been sourced from the other paper's site.

Though samzenpus did a good job rewriting my "na, they'll never accept it" sub, he really shouldn't have lost that link :(

Comment: Re:Not France vs US (Score 1) 258

So then sex with Monica Lewinsky has been decided to be a good thing because Clinton was elected?

Last I checked, neither the House nor the Senate had made a vote asking Clinton to fuck her, so no.

Not every action by an elected government is the will of the people or the "right thing". And given that people are arguing here that it isn't even protectionism, makes me think that it isn't as settled as you assert.

First point: Of course not, but until we have a perfect liquid democracy, it is the closest thing we have, and for the moment, like it or not, it is the modus operandi of our western societies. So taking into account the realities of our lives, it has been decided.

Second point: Of course there will always be discussion in a multi-valued society. In every democratic decision, there's also a minority whose opinion did not win the day, and we allow them to continue voicing it.

Comment: Re:Things are simple... (Score 1) 258

Shop at the store to find what you want then order it online for $1 less is a fantasy you made up.

Not at all. I know both customers who do this and shops that had this problem and went belly up (very likely not just because of it, but it contributed).

Your examples are bad examples and they miss the point. We're talking about small, personal book stores, and you come with Best Buy and Fry.

Comment: love cash (Score 1) 351

by Tom (#47446843) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

I love cash. You can have it when you pry it from my col... wait... not quite. But for me to stop using cash, you have to make electronic cash work first. That means three things that are absolute requirements and I will not ever negotiate:

  1. It is anonymous and untraceable, at least for any practical purposes.
  2. It is as fast and easy to use as taking a bill from my wallet. If your e-cash solution takes more than about 5-10 seconds for a simple payment, it is too slow. I'm talking start-to-finish, including everything I have to do, the recipient has to do, and your system has to do.
  3. It works between two private individuals who meet in the middle of nowhere and don't have Internet at that moment.

As long as even one of these conditions is not met, I will have to carry cash around me anyways, and if I have cash with me, I will use it wherever I can.

Comment: Re:Inside of cameras (Score 5, Informative) 156

by Animats (#47445151) Attached to: Scientists Have Developed a Material So Dark That You Can't See It

I didn't research so forgive my ignorance

It gets this property from its fine surface structure, which is a forest of tubes. Incoming light has to be reflected many times before it gets back out, so a black material is effectively made even less reflective. It's the optical-scale version of the pointed absorbers used in anechoic chambers.

It probably is not going to retain its blackness when exposed to water, dirt, or wear. Superhydrophobic coatings such as Never Wet have the same problem - they work because they're composed of tiny points, so droplets of liquid don't have a surface they can grab. But after some wear, the effect stops working. (See any of the many "NeverWet fails" videos on YouTube.)

This is likely to be great for protected environments, such as inside optical systems. It should be useful for optical sensors in space, too. But it's probably an inherently fragile surface. That limits its uses. (The "stronger than steel" probably refers to the individual carbon nanotubes, not the bulk material.)

This s a problem with a lot of surface chemistry stuff touted as "nanomaterials". They have interesting surface properties, but the surfaces are fragile, because they're some very thin surface layer with an unusual structure. If you protect that structure with some coating, you lose the effect.

Comment: Re:result of the lab/funding system (Score 3, Interesting) 96

by pavon (#47444997) Attached to: Elite Group of Researchers Rule Scientific Publishing

I would even argue that as long as the students who did most of the work have their name listed as first author, there is nothing wrong with this arrangement. I dropped out of my master's program after the first semester because I was being pushed to publish, but wasn't being plugged into any research existing programs. Every "unique" idea that I thought of turned out to have already been studied exhaustively back in the 70's or earlier. All the favorite students in the grad program were people who ignored this inconvientent fact and managed to get rehashed bullshit accepted into conferences.

Several years later I went back to school at a large state U that plugged me into the work they were doing, showed me what the state of the art was and where there were gaps that hadn't been researched in detail. Without building off the ideas of my advisor I would have never been able to do meaningfull research that progressed the state of the art, and would have had nothing worth publishing. He deserved to have his name on my papers.

Comment: Re:What the fuck are they supposed to do? (Score 1) 96

by Jeremiah Cornelius (#47444947) Attached to: Elite Group of Researchers Rule Scientific Publishing

What's the problem with being good at what you do? So there are 1% of researchers who are really fucking good at what they do. They aren't just good, they are REALLY FUCKING GOOD. They are top 1% good. They are THE BEST IN THE WORLD. So why should we be surprised that they have such an impact?

They are getting 99% of the academic tail, too.

Comment: Re:Headline wrong, not invisible. (Score 1) 156

I was thinking of heatsinks - conduct better than copper (no doubt cheaper once manufacturing gets sorted out) and your shiny copper heatpipes will be replaced with not-shiny black ones that you can't see.

The said telescopes would be suitable for this, particularly expensive ones they put in space.

Comment: Re:Not France vs US (Score 1) 258

simply shrinking the market doesn't radically change things,

The market doesn't shrink. The market is the number of exchanged goods. The market doesn't care if there are 200 merchants or 250 merchants. What changes is the distribution of goods and merchants, and when the number of merchants is very low and their concentration of market power high, we get into situations (oligopoly, monopoly) that we do not want because we know they are bad.

If you want a book that isn't in the bestsellers list, then in your local town there's probably only one or two book shops that stock it at best and most likely none.

For the past 20 years, when I go to a bookstore and I want a book they don't have, they could almost always order it and have it for me the next day.

while it'd be nice to have geographically distributed demand for labour, in practice this has not been true since the invention of cities.

I'm not talking about a perfect equilibrium. I'm talking about the simple fact that if your country has one region with 50% unemployment rates and one region where employers can't find workers, your whole country will destabilze.

Of course there will always be differences. But if they get too extreme, the consequences are much higher and much more expensive then the costs of some small interventions.

What's more once you decide that lots of people deserve to be protected from changing times,

I never said anything like that and my arguments are completely unrelated to technical or other progress. So please burn the strawman somewhere else.

If you do something right once, someone will ask you to do it again.

Working...