Such creativeness with the language.
Poor people can't use their wealth to shield themselves from the consequences of their own stupidity, so yes.
I observe this fact every weekend in a nearby wealthy neighborhood where I go to eat at good restaurants. Stupid rich people who don't know how to obey traffic signals (both drivers and pedestrians), don't know how to operate simple machines (soft serve machines shouldn't cause issues for observant adults), and who generally seem to expect everyone to make allowances for their blundering and incompetence.
Einstein's theory of relativity was theoretical at first. It was only later that scientists were able to devise experiments to test it
Actually, you have that exactly wrong: Einstein's theory of special relativity was a direct attempt to explain a specific experimental result, the negative results of the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment to verify the existence of the liminiferous aether. The Michelson-Morley results were published in 1887, and Einstein published special relativity in 1905.
What patent were you reading? There is not a single mention of conversion of vector images to raster images!
The patent describes a set of recorded data that corrects for color and "spatial" distortion of an image by an input our output device. All the claims pertain to various features of that data set, or of the process of applying the corrections to an image.
Thor is now a woman. That's how the transvestitive relation works.
First, if fish (or other marine animals) were eating the plastic (and there is a lot of evidence that they are) then they would also be starving to death (as they can't digest the plastic, and it fills up their digestive systems). When they die, the plastic would be returned to the ocean, and we would see it in our assays. So I don't think that the plastic getting eaten is the obvious solution.
Second, as anyone who has gotten sunburned while swimming knows, water doesn't block ultraviolet light very effectively, so plastic floating near the top of the water column would be exposed to a lot of UV. Plastic breaks down pretty quickly when exposed to UV, so we may just be seeing the natural destruction of the plastic by sunlight (and, I suppose, that plastic that has been partially broken down by exposure to UV might be more easily consumed by bacteria, but that's pure speculation).
Third, maybe we aren't measuring the amount of plastic in the ocean correctly. If the plastic is being consumed, or is sinking to the ocean floor, then we might easily be missing it. Also, the plastic might well not be evenly distributed across the ocean: it may be collecting in specific places due to winds and ocean currents. If we are not collecting samples evenly over the entire ocean, then we could be missing some high concentration areas.
I doubt that this means we can all breath a sigh of relief and decide that dumping plastic in the oceans is no big deal. I also doubt that this means that plastic is a much bigger problem than we thought (how could it be a bigger problem then we thought? People have been screaming about it like it was a sign of the end-times!). It is interesting, however, and I would like to know why our measurements don't match our expectations.
my concern is that deciding to eat the invasive species is tantamount to an admission of defeat.
While I don't think that we should accept the status quo of irresponsibly introducing invasive species to our local environments, I think it's a wonderful idea to try eating our way out of the problems we've already created. For example, the Northern Snakehead is a recent and particular problem in my region (Washington D.C. Metropolitan area) and, coincidentally, is quite tasty. If we could manage to fish them to extinction it would be all for the best, and should be encouraged. Of course this may not work for many invasive species (some reproduce too rapidly to be effectively controlled by human predation, others might not be edible or palatable), so this sort of solution should be considered only as a second (or lower) tier option.
Jane Q. Public wrote:
In order for it to be true, the average "microbe" would have to be incredibly smaller than the average human cell
Indeed: human skin cell = 30 um, red blood cell = 8 um, human X chromosome = 7 um, yeast cell = 3x4 um, mitochondria body = 4x0.8 um, E. coli bacterium = 4x0.6 um. (taken from this page found via a rudimentary Google search, zoom down to the micrometer range)
Human cells are pretty large, on average, and microbial cells are much smaller.
That doesn't make the cited factoid any more meaningful, but it is certainly not worthy of doubt based purely on the numbers (that is to say, there are certainly more atoms of calcium in your body than there are human cells, but does that mean that you are, in fact, a lump of chalk?).
The cluster was wearing Google Glass.
Yes, Iapetus was photographed by Voyager 2 in 1981 (link to NASA image with metadata listed), and I would suspect that there were earth based images taken well before that (but none that would show any detail).
Who would have expected a summary on Slashdot to be carelessly wrong about something factual and easily verified?
That last link is memorable for the line "ultra-fine water droplets so small they lack moisture."
Ah, good times.
100% of all servers will ship to companies whose executives have used the "cloud" buzzword to promote the company.
by John Brunner, predates cyberpunk by half a decade and features strong themes of government secrecy and surveillance.