The primary PNAS article is pretty annoying IMHO. One of the main purposes of publishing research is to describe the methods so that others can reproduce it. In the Materials and Methods section, the only description of the fields applied refer to using 70% intensity setting of a commercially available product, the Magstim SuperRapid, which does not even appear on the manufacturer's website. Also, the orientation of the field is described only by referring to the orientation of the handle of the device. I would expect a published article to describe the actual field intensity, orientation, and some description of field geometry.
Guessing that the SuperRapid is equivalent to the Rapid, they are applying 70%*3.5 Tesla = ~ 2.5 Tesla. Holy cow, that's a lot. For comparison, Earth's field is 0.0005 Tesla.
I assume that no one really cares what happens when you apply these kind of fields to the brain given that one doesn't experience anything like this in normal situations. Is the point that we can learn about brain function by poking it in various ways, and this is just a good way to poke it?
My understanding is that Apple now approves most apps in a few days.
Your understanding from personal experience, from Apple's official stance, or from what you hear from a few developers?
It seems as if Apple can decide to block an application without actually rejecting it (in order to keep the FCC of their tails) - I'm currently on day 63 "In Review" with an app which I now consider (unofficially) rejected by Apple
...he has a razor that is very useful in these situations. You have three choices: one and two are rather bizarre theories that require significant new physics (reflecting gravitational waves or Heim theory). Choice three uses conventional physics, and is therefore boring. But it explains the GpB data so far.
Until polhode effects can be ruled out, Occam's razor pretty much requires us to stick with this explanation. Don't use a complex experiment to make claims about new physics unless you understand the experiment really, really well. It is just too easy for the "new physics" to turn out to be some subtle effect in the experimental hardware.
My understanding is that a modern twin (777) is less likely to lose one engine than an older quad (747) is to lose three engines. The 777 was more or less required to meet this challenge in order to be certified for over water use.
A 777 certainly does not have to divert to the nearest airport if it loses one engine. After all, the things fly over the Pacific where there are no airports!
No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.