text:
How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?
How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?
Looks to me that the web is falling under the control of DHS. [thehill.com] We all know how much a threat bit-torrent search engines are to national security.
If this would have happened three years ago, Slash would have posted this article three times with 750 comments each talking about how Bush is a tyrant trying to seize and solidify power. Now in 2010, not a peep.
Actually, Slashdot posted it yesterday: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/26/1450257/US-Government-Seizes-Torrent-Search-Engine-Domain [slashdot.org]
The same day as your link.
Slashdot may have political bias, but when it comes to tech, no party or ideology gets off the hook.
I'd sooner suspect your bias, for linking to TheHill, than Slashdot's.
you mean the debunked scenario in the first comment?
slashdot may have political bias, but that doesn't mean people pay attention to when things are a hoax.
"Slashdot may have political bias"
Speaking about political bias, peoples understanding of what reason is and how it functions is seriously incorrect on all sides.
Everyone on slashdot should see the following:
Clip from important part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ [youtube.com]
Te whole thing on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOdJMuCreDA [youtube.com]
Actually, Slashdot posted it yesterday: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/26/1450257/US-Government-Seizes-Torrent-Search-Engine-Domain [slashdot.org]
The same day as your link.
Slashdot may have political bias, but when it comes to tech, no party or ideology gets off the hook.
I'd sooner suspect your bias, for linking to TheHill, than Slashdot's.
Thanx. That one flew under my radar. Still, it mentions only one site that was taken over. THIS [torrentfreak.com] site contains an update that lists many more that have been taken over. And, NO, it's not TheHill.com.
But back to my original point. Shouldn't there be comparisons to Nazi book burnings or something? I know we would have seen that comparison made three years ago. I wonder what has changed since then.
Shouldn't there be comparisons to Nazi book burnings or something? I know we would have seen that comparison made three years ago. I wonder what has changed since then.
Ah, the wonders of selection bias. Not to mention the standard confusion of Slashdot with a hive mind.
Wow. You mean expressing my anger online hasn't permanently fixed the problem? This is an outrage!
I think that says more about how many people are reading slashdot. Most of the stories here now have a paltry handful of comments, and what comments there are
I think reddit has finally killed slashdot.
I think reddit has finally killed slashdot.
Pretty much. I jumped ship to Reddit months ago. Between the perpetual obnoxification of the Slashdot interface, the stupidification of the Slashdot "editors" and their inscrutable logic in approving idiotic stories for the front page, and the hordes of trollish mundanes that have watered down the geek quotient, I hardly bother to check Slashdot anymore. Back when it was CmdrTaco posting cool dork/nerd shit he found on the internet it was pretty fun, but now... meh.
How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?
Make it unprofitable.
How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?
Make it unprofitable.
So . . . you want the government to manage it?
So . . . you want the government to manage it?
If you remember your history, originally they did. None of this non-sense was happening until private businesses moved in and demanded government protection for their profit margins.
How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?
Make it unprofitable.
So . . . you want the government to manage it?
Well, the US government did fund about 99% of its development, mainly through (D)ARPA, the (Defense) Advanced Research Projects Agency. That seems to have worked pretty well. Furthermore, ARPA left most of the development to the academic community, which does a fairly good job of "unprofitable". They were interested in capability, not profits. The military took what they considered useful from what the academics developed, used it to build their own Internet with very few connections to the academic Internet, and left the academics to continue to play with their big, useful toy.
OTOH, since the Internet was commercialized, we see a lot of what we're talking about here: The primary interest of the for-profit world is maximizing their income from the Internet, while minimizing development and support costs. This is why, for example, it has taken so long to get wireless Internet. It has been built by the phone companies, whose interests lie in creating exclusive "walled gardens", in which they have control over what software you are allowed to run, because they want you to pay for every little thing (even when its authors are giving it out free). They also seriously limit independent developers, because they want you to pay the phone companies for the software, not the developers. (Sorta like how the music industry has so successfully claimed 99% of the income, given a small part to the top "artists", and given the rest nothing.)
If history is any guide, we should conclude that strict government control and management of the Internet is the right way to go, at least in countries where the government (or the military
The growing talk of corporate monopolies running big chunks of the Internet should be a serious warning to all of us. To see why, look at the phone system back when in the US and many other countries, you could only attach hardware purchased or leased from the phone companies to your phone line. For a century, this produced glacially-slow development. Then, in the US and a few other countries, the government changed the rules, and gave customers permission to attach "foreign" gadgets (that met minimum interface requirements) to their phone lines. Within only a few years, there was an explosion of new capabilities. This is what you'd expect when you enable competition, of course. But you can't have competition and development if your connection is controlled by a monopoly that's allowed to control how you can use their system. In the US, this is pretty much the situation with wireless phones right now, and as a result, the wireless Internet is seriously crippled here.
Phrases like "net neutrality" and "control of the Web" should be warnings to all of us that the corporate world is trying to take control and limit our use of the Internet to only what we've explicitly paid them for. Look at the anti-competitive ways that Apple's App Store imposes. Ask yourself whether you want Apple or any of the other big players to impose rules like that on all the independent software developers out there. Ask yourself whether you want one big "winner" to control the Internet like AT&T did the phone system for a century, and block almost all further progress.
This is a case where the classical "incompetence" of the government has worked to our advantage. Maybe we should keep it that way. Without it, we'd never have had the Internet. We'd only have a flock of small, vendor-specific networks. You'd only be able to communicate with people and sites approved of by your
Look at the anti-competitive ways that Apple's App Store imposes.
I don't get it. Apple has rules for what you can sell in their store. Big deal. So does Walmart. So does Target. So does Home Depot. I don't have to shop at those stores if I don't want to.
We needed a fundamental human right that says access to public information on the web should be accessible by anyone using any device.
As for Flash and Silverlight, they hinder development of the web by providing an easy way to do things or a way to do things not possible by DHTML/Javascript.
The web will continue to be controlled by the same people that have always controlled it -- us, the users. If a minority interest such as a company or government manages to exert unwanted influence on the web, whether that be a proprietary standard or unpopular laws, then the greater community will simply migrate the web to a new form.
Continue supporting open source solutions. As long as Unix/Linux OSes remain the dominant systems and Apache the dominant server then proprietary solutions will never win. The attempt of proprietary vendors to win is exactly what drives the community to fork and maintain open source. In the same way that BSD gave birth to FreeBSD, Open Office gave birth to Libre Office. I suspect Oracle will eventually force MySQL to fork in order to remain open but it has the momentum now to remain the dominant web DB. Fre
Um. The title is absurd. You don't "control the web" by adopting open standards. None of these three is "controlling the web." If you want to look for someone controlling the web, look at all the legislation going around allowing governments to seize domain names, and treat traffic differently based on its source, and shut down peoples' access to the web based on mere allegations. That's "controlling the web."
He who lays the pipes.
The same answer to "who will pass on their genetic traits?"
Put down that pipe and save the tubes.
Who Will Win Control of the Web?
You and I, silly people. Why are we deluding ourselves into believing only massive multinational companies can control the web, or that the government can control the internet, etc.? They are granted power because we give it to them.
If each of you here went over to 10 people's homes and set them up on something like Tor, and showed them how to protect their privacy and avoid malware and advertisement, executives everywhere would be protesting in front of Congress to stop those goddamned citizens from ruining their perfectly profitable business built on exploiting them. That, people, is power. And it is yours, not theirs.
Unfortunately javascript, Flash, Silverlight, etc... can easily be leveraged to compromise your anonymity via Tor.
Oh noes! Someone might find out that my real IP address is 192.168.1.100!
Hey, that's my IP address too you jerk!
That's not mine; mine is 192.168.1.103.
So I'm two better than you guys.
Mine is the same as yours only mine goes up to 11.
If each of you here went over to 10 people's homes and set them up on something like Tor, and showed them how to protect their privacy and avoid malware and advertisement, executives everywhere would be protesting in front of Congress to stop those goddamned citizens from ruining their perfectly profitable business built on exploiting them.
Yep and then when facebook doesn't work, or youtube is too slow. They will immediately stop everything they were just taught.
Tor is slow. Most people are too lazy to use ad-block or no-script.. that and it makes their web pages not work. Ive had people use my computer to go online real quick and the second facebook doesn't load.. "whats wrong with your computer?"
You are totally underestimating the power of stupid/lazy people.
That's a big if, though. The power structure of the world has and will always be a pyramid, and those on the bottom have always had the strength and numbers to overthrow those above it, yet a look at the past 20 years in Myanmar/Burma and Argentina are enough to show you that people still, after thousands of years, aren't always quick to do it. Something like the Magna Carta only happens so often, but when it does it's glorious. The real power in that document wasn't the power of the peasants or even the nobles to hold the monarchy accountable - after all, we've always had pitchforks - it was the establishment of an early set of bureaucracy. Companies follow rules for profit, the easiest way to win is just to play their game. Net neutrality is a good example of that - use an established bureaucracy against them. It's much easier to effect change as a small group of vocal lobbyists than a massive uprising. The average citizen wants their coffee and paper, to watch the game, and for the kids to behave. A technowhatsit spat over standards is about as boring as John Kerry's stump speech (that joke is six years old already).
You know, people are always reluctant for me to touch their computers and install privacy-enhancing software, until I show them how much faster their computer runs without malware, spyware, and pre-installed garbage. After I strip away all the advertisements they see on the web, they're utterly delighted. They want to buy me dinner, or hug me until I choke. They go from skeptics to supporters in a matter of minutes. And then I explain to them how I did it, and ask them to show their friends.
People come to me all the time now asking for the same services: How do I turn off advertisements on my internet? How to I get rid of all these popups trying to sell me crap? And increasingly, people are asking me how they can browse without the government knowing what they are looking at. See, people do read all this crap on CNN; They just feel powerless to do anything about it.
But once they have a community resource willing to show them, suddenly you've got the most unlikeliest of people knocking at your door. Traditional arguments about power and government hold little weight when I can show people how to push a button and make all the bullsh*t go away. No more tracking. No more advertisements. Bamf. Gone. All of it. They're free to use the public resource that is the internet with a peace of mind and just a smidgeon of anonymity and privacy.
And they do. Oh how they do.
The power structure of the world has and will always be a pyramid, and those on the bottom have always had the strength and numbers to overthrow those above it, yet a look at the past 20 years in Myanmar/Burma and Argentina are enough to show you that people still, after thousands of years, aren't always quick to do it.
Actually, history is full of stories of the people at the top being overthrown by their "inferiors". But those people are human, too, so what they normally do is just step into their predece
You and I, silly people. Why are we deluding ourselves into believing only massive multinational companies can control the web,
You are right that the Web belongs to you and I. And it goes further. TFA asks the question backwards:
Control of this new evolution of the web is up for grabs. Each of the big three computing companies – Microsoft, Apple and Google – has its own radically different vision to promote.
This question is biased. The Web has not been created by corporate entities and is not "up for grabs". The web has evolved out of the cumulative connectedness of public networks through public standards, which development is still overseen by the WWW Consortium. Attempts to privatize parts of it (eg. AOL) have failed and new attempts must fail if we wish to see the Web further innovate.
Read Tim Berners-Lee latest article. It articulates the questions facing the evolution of the Web so much more clearly:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=long-live-the-web [scientificamerican.com]
Sorry to reply to my own post, but to put Microsoft, Apple and Google contentions on the same plane is just wrong. Of these, only Google is purely a Web company, and is also the only one who defends the public standards that have made the Web, and its own existence, possible.
The other two are, indeed, grabbers.
So that whole deal with Apple taking a GPL engine, enhancing it and developing it, and pushing HTML5 and CSS, and striving hard to ensure that Webkit passed the Acid Tests, among other standards compliance...
MS finally pulling its finger out with IE9 development, and decent HTML5 demonstrations, looking like it will at last be on a par with the other browsers for web standards.
That was all just a myth, right?
Google is not the only one promoting the public standards that have made the web.
If each of you here went over to 10 people's homes
Wait... do you mean, like, go outside?
Why are we deluding ourselves into believing only massive multinational companies can control the web, or that the government can control the internet, etc.? They are granted power because we give it to them.
This is a myth. If it were true, the actions of the government would reflect the wishes of the majority. But it isn't true:
it is not in fact true that the idea that groups will act in their self-interest follows logically from the premise of rational and self-interested behavior. It does not follow,
July: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/07/01/ice-seizes-website-domains-part-copyright-crackdown [gamepolitics.com]
Nov: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/130763-homeland-security-dept-seizes-domain-names- [thehill.com]
Dec: ?
And in the UK its the police:
Mid-November: http://libcom.org/news/police-force-shut-down-fitwatchorguk-16112010 [libcom.org]
Late-November: http://www.techeye.net/internet/uk-police-want-power-to-shut-down-websites [techeye.net]
Unfortunately the US government (at least in the US) has pulled ahead in terms of controlling the internet via seizure:
They've pulled ahead in terms of controlling one network resource: DNS. That does not mean control of the internet.
It's a pain now. But if power is abused enough, we'll find DNS servers popping up that are alternatives for censorship-enabled countries like the United States and China.
They're shutting down sites that help people infringe on copyright. Why do guys keep defending sites that are breaking the law? What logical progression goes from "shutting down sites that help infringe" to "mandate a government DNS"?
If you want to get technical, the government didn't "seize" anything? They updated a DNS entry. The original site, server, files, equipment, goods, etc. are still in the hands of the owner.
I disagree with the length of copyright and think the industry should make more things av
They may not have seized the servers, but the government effectively DoS'ed them for 90%+ of their users at the behest of the ip cartels without due process. If they can do it to these guys with no repercussions or oversight, they can do it to some sight you do care about.
Really? How does the progression from "sites dealing in counterfeit goods" to "sites with dissenting opinion" happen? What court is going to issue that order unless the accusers are lying?
Let's be realistic here for a second and stop this bullshit skirting the law defense.
Go to torrent-finder.info and you'll see "high speed download" links for copyright infringing works. The "popular tags" all look like copyright infringing works. It is very obvious that they exist only to help people infringe on copyrights and make advertising money off of it.
While you may be able to do something similar with Google, but that is not the primary reason they exist.
How is securing a court order before changing
I would defend the postal service if it got shut down because someone mailed illegal materials to someone else.
And that's exactly why they can't shut down the bittorrent protocol or games and operating systems from distributing via bittorrent. That's why you don't see linuxtracker.org (for example) on the list of sites.
It's obvious that while the blocked sites encourage using a legal protocol, their primary function is to encourage it's use for copyright infringement.
Most comments have not been in defense of copyright infringement, but opposed to lack of due process.
'LaminatorX' summed it up [slashdot.org] rather accurately for you.
If you want to get technical, the government didn't "seize" anything? They updated a DNS entry. The original site, server, files, equipment, goods, etc. are still in the hands of the owner.
That sounds a bit strange for someone defending IP[copyright] rights.
I mean, just how do you propose they seize a website? Smash in and grab the servers, etc.?
That only works when the servers are in your area of jurisdiction. To do that in the ontopic case, we would have to invade another country to seize the servers.
In this case, we updated the DNS entry t
Most comments have not been in defense of copyright infringement, but opposed to lack of due process.
What exactly is due process when most of the organization exists outside of your jurisdiction? We can't arrest the owner or serve him to appear in US court. Yet, his actions are allowing US citizens to violate copyright laws. The only thing we have jurisdiction over is the
So is not due process getting a court order and serving it to those in the US controlling DNS resolution for t
With great power comes great responsibility. Most of these big companies are missing at least one of those.
Who will win control of the Web? I will. In fact, I already have it, and have had it since some time in the 1990s. And if some entity somehow takes that control away from me, I or one of my many fellow producers of web content will create a new Web, and we will use that.
Or you could go read the 'print' version which is all on one page and not 75% advertisement.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/363175/who-will-win-the-battle-for-control-of-the-web/print [pcpro.co.uk]
I'm pretty much talking out my ass but what is all this "control the web" nonsense? Isn't that precisely what we're 100% against?
And perhaps it's semantics + bad journalism. What they seem to be really asking - "whose technologies will gain the highest presence on the web?"
But that's not really "control" by any means.
The web should be renamed the ebb for ebb and flow.
Right now, Facebook is taking over the web.
Soon, people will realize Facebook is just AOL without the free coasters.
It will be on to the next BIG thing.
Could you and the GP explain what it is about Facebook that makes you so angry when others use it? Do you think that given an opportunity, you would bar citizens from accessing Facebook, possibly because you look down on them or think it is for their own good? Keep in mind no one is making YOU use Facebook; I am inquiring about your anger at others' usage.
providers of internet access...
See post title, thanks.
Almost no one really knows how to use a computer. Almost no one knows how to create a domain name and create content, even using one click installs of pre fab websites. Most people do not want to learn. MS is losing market share because most firms do
Whoever delivers the machines the average user need to access the web will define the way that the web pages are developed. Be it HTML 5, Flash, with a WIMP or more likely touch interface.
I keep hoping someone will notice that HTTP is not the only Internet protocol in existence!
HTML has been stretched way beyond its original intent - to deliver static, stateless text-based documents. In the mad rush to push multimedia onto the net, someone decided that the Web browser is the proper platform for delivery
Create a web-application with Flash or SilverLight? With Acrobat?
I would rather say Apache, PHP, MySQL (PostgreSQL), JavaScript, GIMP, Notepad++, Firefox.
But how to do it with Flash, Silverlight, Acrobat, Apple-whatever? Will it work at all? Will someone use it?
Title seems wrong. We should be asking if we'll ever see the web again or if it will forever be buried under a layer of flash.
Too late, the US Federal Government seems to have already (re)taken control.
Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser


text:
SpellTower, easily the best word game to release for iOS in recent memory, has been updated to add universal support for the iPhone. Previously only available for the iPad, this strategic word game features 4 game modes, eye pleasing visuals, game center leaderboards and achievements for you to see just how expansive your vocabulary really is. Puzzle Mode gives the game a Tetris (or even Drop7) feel to it, where bottom rows are added for every word you make. Once the blocks reach the top, it's game over. If you're tired of the likes of Bookworm (Review) or Abca (Review), take a closer look at SpellTower. You'd be hard pressed to find a better word game at the moment on the iDevice. The video trailer below will run you through all the game modes and how they're played.
Zach Gage, SpellTower, – $1.99

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Love & Marriage
Featured Posts
This is the one thing everyone forgets to do at one time and point in their relationship. I have been there as well.
When we both already had one foot out the door to divorce we knew something had to change and change fast.
18 years is like an eternity to some. 18 years to me is not long enough to be with my husband.
When you started wondering if your relationship has run it's course ask yourself one question.
Do I love him/her?
I'm not asking if you are inlove. Only if you can say "yes".
If you can say yes then you can get back that butterfly feeling on both sides.
How did we find that seemingly lost love and connection?
1. We put love first. Our love comes before everything including our 7 children. I'm not saying we neglect our children at all. We do give them 2 parents that are madly inlove and happy.
2. We both sat down separately and made two lists: One is our needs the other our wants.
Choose carefully needs are things that we can't live without we have to have it to feel whole.
Wants are the extras that make you feel good but won't destroy you if you don't have them.
After making the lists give explanations for them. Men especially don't read between the lines. You have to really break it down and explain it.
Example: I need you to hold me when something is wrong.
Men will translate as well I hug you and say I love you. What am I doing wrong.
To explain it: I need you to hold me when something is wrong because I feel safe and know everything will be OK.
2. Set a time and date within a couple of days to read each others lists. Make sure you have no interruptions turn of the phones, TV, computer eliminate any possibly of being interrupted by kids.
A couple hours at least.
During this time you need to make promises to fufill each others needs and comprise on the wants.
3. Make a weekly meeting about the business side of your relationship. Same rules apply as above. The meeting typically takes 45 minutes.
During this time and only during this time catch each other up on what needs to be done for the week to following the meeting.
Appointments, car or house repairs, grocery list, school activities, extracurricular activities, bills that need to be paid, dry cleaning, anything that is a chore.
Make a list throughout the week for the business meeting so you don't forget to bring it up at that time. If you remember something decide if it is important enough that it has to be discussed any other time.
The reason for this is to make your relationship about love and not a business transaction.
4. The touching challenge: This you will do everyday at least 5x's each.
At least 5x's a day touch your partner in a living way.
A gentle brush of their back as you walk by. This just says I love you and I see you.
It can be any form of touching but bumping into each other trying to get in the refrigerator at the same time does not count.
5. Talk challenge :This challenge may seem insane or impossible but it really is easy to do.
Everyday at least every couple hours say something positive to each other. Even during work hours it can be done. Best part it takes less than minute to do it.
These are a few things we say to each other.
Hi Baby, I just wanted to remind you how happy you make me and how much I love you.
Nothing long but huge in the same breath. That little sentence can breakup a stressful moment for both of you.
3x's a week for 5 minutes. Talk about your future together after kids. Your hopes and dreams absolutely nothing about the kids, work, bills nothing negative. Only each other.
1x a week for 30 minutes : The same and more as above. No interruptions just looking into each others eyes.
6. Date night: Once a week is ideal but I realize it isn't always possible. If money is an issue then I have a solution for that too.
Date night doesn't have to mean spending money. It is only about the two of you spending time alone away from home for a couple of hours.
7. No technology after 7 pm until tomorrow.
No texting, no computers, tablets. If you can get away with turning off phones as well do it. Only answer the phone if you have too but make the conversation short.
Once the kids are in bed the rest of the time belongs to the two of you.
Watch a TV show.
Give each other massage.
If you don't always agree what to watch compromise. One night watch something they like to watch and another nigh watch what you like. Just do it together.
In total for an entire week you are only spending about 10 hours putting love first.
10 hours out of 168 hours really isn't a lot but it is so worth it.
My husband and I both run our 3 companies together, we both attend graduate school, homeschool 5 out of 7 of our children, and everything in between.
We both get really tired but we always put each other and love first.
Our children see mom and dad completely head over heels inlove and happy. They are learning what a healthy living relationship is.
I know that even after 18 yrs I still get excited when I see him. Our bedroom life is amazing.
There is more but I will add it in another post later.
I promise you if you make the adjustments. You will reconnect like you never have before.
by AlannaMariaJanuary 30, 2013 at 5:41 PMLove this :)
by ttc1rainbowJanuary 30, 2013 at 11:18 PM
Thank you for sharing this. :)
January 31, 2013 at 11:50 AMBUMP!
by MNitzJanuary 31, 2013 at 12:28 PM
Thank you for sharing this! It couldn't have come at a better time.
January 31, 2013 at 12:45 PMThank you so much for sharing! This sounds really great.
January 31, 2013 at 1:51 PMYour welcome. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
Quoting MNitz:
Thank you for sharing this! It couldn't have come at a better time.
February 1, 2013 at 6:53 PMBUMP!
by MrsShipley21February 1, 2013 at 7:06 PM
I love my daddy, He is everything to me as I am him ^_^
February 1, 2013 at 8:06 PM
A really fun date night that we do when we can't get away, is wait until the kids are in bed, and have a picnic in the living room. I make something special, we open a bottle of champaigne, and we just flirt with each other.
February 2, 2013 at 11:39 AMDefinitely date night isn't about spending money it is about just spending dedicated time alone time focusing on only each other.
I do recommend going out of the house though.
Quoting Bigmetalchicken:
A really fun date night that we do when we can't get away, is wait until the kids are in bed, and have a picnic in the living room. I make something special, we open a bottle of champaigne, and we just flirt with each other.


text:
Sometimes doing the right thing isn't easy, especially when it comes to shopping. Lately I find myself immobilized by indecision, blocking the aisle as I contemplatie a potential purchase. There are so many things to consider. I'm not talking about food shopping, that's easy for me. I put a priority on the things I put in my body and there aren't nearly as many factors for me to consider beyond how/where it was grown/made and whether I can afford it. Not so when it comes to home décor.
My first issue is that it pains me to spend money on something that is not useful. I'm sure there's an argument somewhere supporting the need for a picture on the wall or ceramic rooster on the shelf, but I don't think I can make it. Still, I realize the things that decorate my home inspire me and make our house feel more like a home. It's just that when it comes to decorating, all the air goes out of me because I'd much rather spend that same money on mulch or blueberry bushes or horse feed or something much more useful that doesn't require dusting. My true handicap is that I have no earthly idea how to decorate. I can walk into someone else's beautifully appointed house and admire it, but when I look at my own walls I can't picture what they need (besides a good scrubbing). I've never watched a home decorating television show (and I can't imagine a worse torture) and the closest I've come to learning anything about decorating was thumbing through a Martha Stewart Coffee Table book at the dentist's office. My living room walls were primered for seven years before I finally decided what color to paint them. And that would never have happened if an incredibly gifted decorator friend hadn't told me what colors to paint. (My bedroom is still a beautiful shade of Kilz primer, but I'm getting dangerously close to picking up some paint chips)
My personal decorating issue aside, even if I knew that ceramic chicken was absolutely perfect for my living room shelf, I would still struggle with the purchase. I don't know where it came from, how it was made, who was mistreated in the production of the chicken, or whether the glossy paint or metal feet are made with toxic materials. I've been aware of some of these issues on the periphery of my life, but now when I consider buying something I don't need and has very little purpose and will cost me significant money, they matter a little more. I don't want my callous purchase to further the mistreatment of workers or the planet and I certainly don't want to pay to bring something in to my house that could potentially harm my family's health. See why I get stuck in shopping aisles? Too much to consider.
We're getting ready to renovate our master bathroom that is 6 x 6 feet and being slowly consumed by mold. This has led to great discussion on what kinds of fixtures to install and flooring and, heaven forbid, paint. In my initial fantasies about this future bathroom, I was hoping to use green, sustainably made products. That was until I saw the price. It would cost nearly ¼ of what our house is worth to truly make our bathroom "green". Body & Soul magazine had a recent feature called, "50 tips for a Greener, Cleaner Home". I couldn't wait to read it. There were a few helpful tips like replacing paper towels with washable cloths and placing water jugs in your freezer to fill up the unused space (what unused space? My freezer is maxed out.). As much as I enjoy the magazine, I was truly disheartened by the bulk of the article. There were lots of great ideas for greening your home, if you happen to work on Wall Street and will be getting one of those $340,000 (average) bonuses this year. How about some Chrysalis Wall Flats (tiles) made from renewable bamboo pulp - $86 for 10 tiles? Or a chair constructed using FSC-certified wood with zero-VOC finish and upholstery colored with low-impact dyes – just $7,278? A cedar composter for only $300 or a dollhouse for your child that has a tiny wooden windmill, solar panels, a rain barrel and recycling bins for $240? To be fair, there were some relatively reasonably priced gadgets, but that's just it, 40 out of 50 of the "tips" involved buying something. Is bringing something else in to your home making it greener?
Maybe the happy medium is replacing your things that no longer work with more eco-friendly ones (if you can afford them), but not throwing out functioning items just to have a greener version. I take issue with the idea of throwing out something perfectly useful that you already own (and probably purchased when you weren't so enlightened) just so you can feel less guilty about owning it. It's not very green to add to our overburdened landfills and probably cancels out all the good you do purchasing that new eco-friendly gadget – that means you still have to feel guilty.
Which brings me to the issue of price. I'm not naïve enough to think that our capitalist society isn't going to figure out ways to make a buck on this green movement, but I think it is up to all of us to question their motives and look carefully at their products. Sometimes it truly does cost more to make a product more responsibly, but sometimes that eco-friendly label is simply an excuse to jack up the price. Don't buy in to that. As I consider our new bathroom, I'm going to do my best to make it green, and I'm really hoping we can get some bamboo floor mats and the truly cool Evolve Roadrunner low-flow showerhead that saves eight gallons per five-minute shower ($40), but you can bet it will require a few more internal debates in the shopping aisle as I consider what my options truly are and whether I can afford them.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Green Decorating or Do We Really Need a Ceramic Rooster?
1 comment:
As my father-in-law used to say, "Use it up, wear it out, make due or do without." Now I say "Just say "No" to buying!" I used to buy as a form of therapy but now I am stronger... First I went with the "Do I NEED it or do I just WANT it?" But now, I just get grossed out by the way our society buys gratuitously. The thought of someone making something from the Target $1 for just pennies... the thought of the natural resources used to produced said piece of junk... suddenly, that $1 item doesn't seem so cheap anymore.ReplyDelete
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
One of the most highly respected diving coaches in the world, three-time Olympic coach Vince Panzano is entering his 27th season as the head diving coach at Ohio State. A graduate of The Ohio State University in 1973, Panzano began his coaching career at the University of Tennessee and returned to his alma mater in 1978.
In his 32 years of coaching, Panzano has produced one world champion, one junior world champion, two Olympic medalists, 22 U.S. diving champions, 10 NCAA champions, 14 NCAA runners-up, 45 Big Ten champions and 67 All-Americans. Panzano also has coached Ohio State and McDonald Diving to six national team titles. Since the 1984 Olympics Panzano and Ohio State have had divers on four of the last Olympic teams.
Panzano was named the Big Ten Coach of the Year in 2004 after both his women and men squads had excellent performances. The women's squad had all four divers score points for the Buckeyes, including a second-place finish on the 3-meter dive by Julie Broms. The men's team had every diver score, earning 113 points, which was 44 points above the second-best diving squad in the conference. Men's diver, Mitch Richeson, was named the Big Ten Diver of the Year and won a Big Ten championship in the 3-meter dive. At the NCAA championships, Mitch Richeson, one of four Buckeye divers, finished sixth in the 1-meter dive and earned All-American honors. Ashley Bourland, who finished sixth in the platform dive, earned honorable mention All-American honors.
Panzano has twice been awarded the "Mike Peppe Award," as U.S. Diving's outstanding coach. Panzano also has been selected NCAA Diving Coach of the Year three times and Big Ten Diving Coach of the Year eight times. In 1996, Panzano was inducted into Ohio State University's Athletics Hall of Fame.
Panzano has a rich coaching experience in diving on the international level. He has served as the Olympic coach on three separate occasions. He has served as coach for the Pan American Team, a World Championship and in World Cup competitions. He also has been actively involved in coaching Junior Olympic divers.
Aside from coaching, Panzano served as meet director for the 1976 Olympic Trials. He hosted the first-ever United States vs. China dual diving meet in 1980 at Ohio State and in 1981 he hosted the indoor U.S. Diving Championships, also held at Ohio State. He has served on the United States Diving Board of Directors, the NCAA Swimming and Diving Rules Committee and the United States Diving International/Olympic Committee.
A native of King of Prussia, Pa., Panzano and his wife, Phyllis, have two boys, Vincent and Bryan.


text:
Course Description
Health Assessment
Units: 3
Lecture, 2 hours per week; Laboratory, 3 hours per week
This course provides the nursing student with skills in physical, spiritual, and psychosocial assessment of adult clients. History-taking and physical-examination techniques presented in the course help the student develop strong assessment skills upon which further knowledge and practice can be built. Basic concepts related to assessment of geriatric, pediatric, and childbearing patients are included. RNs take this course in the summer.


text:
Did you read today's front page stories & breaking news?
From the Wires
Research and Markets: Global Cloud Storage Gateway Market 2012-2016 Report Reveals That One of the Major Challenges in This Market Is the Increasing Number of End-User Locations
By: Business Wire
Feb. 7, 2013 12:51 PM
Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/4bg25m/global_cloud) has announced the addition of the "Global Cloud Storage Gateway Market 2012-2016" report to their offering.
TechNavio's analysts forecast the Global Cloud Storage Gateway market to grow at a CAGR of 84.64 percent over the period 2012-2016. One of the key factors contributing to this market growth is the better measures for data recovery. The Global Cloud Storage Gateway market has also been witnessing the growth in archiving on the public cloud storages. However, the increasing number of end-user locations could pose a challenge to the growth of this market.
The key vendors dominating this market space are CTERA Networks Ltd., Emulex Corp., Nirvanix Inc., and Riverbed Technology Inc.
The other vendors mentioned in the report are Amazon Web Services LLC., TwinStrata Inc., StorSimple Inc., Panzura Inc., Carbonite Inc., Evault Inc., and Persistent Systems Ltd.
Commenting on the report, an analyst from TechNavio's Data Centers team said: ''The Global cloud storage gateway (CSG) market is witnessing a rapid increase in the demand for data archiving facilities. Enterprises have realized the need to archive their data and are finding that public cloud storage mediums provide the most efficient means to do so. As a result of the decreasing costs of cloud-based storage services, and the increasing reliability of these services, enterprises are finding it efficient to adopt cloud-based storage. With the growing demand for cloud-based storage, there is a growing demand for CSGs. CSGs act as conduits for the transfer and storage of data from enterprise infrastructure to cloud storage infrastructure.''
According to the report, enterprises are increasingly adopting cloud-based storage services. Applications and data are hosted on cloud-based storage devices. Cloud-based storage vendors make use of CSGs, which help in monitoring the data traffic and also ensure the safety of the data being accessed. If there is any interruption in service or any application fails to execute in the cloud, a CSG initiates a disaster recovery procedure to safeguard the data and the applications from being disrupted. The ability of CSGs to safeguard the data in cloud-based storage is driving the Global CSG market.
For more information visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/4bg25m/global_cloud
Latest Cloud Developer Stories
Subscribe to the World's Most Powerful Newsletters
Subscribe to Our Rss Feeds & Get Your SYS-CON News Live!
SYS-CON Featured Whitepapers
Most Read This Week


text:
The lights are on
With plenty of releases on the horizon, we don't want anything to get lost in the shuffle. These are games that you should consider not letting pass you by. Not only are they less known, but each title also provides something different and exciting for gamers.
Gone Home (PC)Release: August 15
What It Is: The first game from The Fullbright Company, Gone Home focuses on exploratory storytelling by having you search a
house to unfold the story.
Why You Should Care: The Fullbright Company is taking on a
unique venture to explore if story and your own curiosity can
drive an entire game. The gameplay is light as you're merely stepping inside a
house and trying to figure out what's going on by reading notes,
listening to phone messages, and having objects hint at the issues surrounding a family. Those who enjoyed finding the audio logs in the BioShock games
are sure to get a kick out of Gone Home, as members of The Fullbright Company worked together on the BioShock 2 DLC, Minerva's Den. Gone Home is set in the '90s, so part
of the magic is finding all the nostalgic elements like Street Fighter II and 90210 posters. For those who play
games for story, this is an experiment you shouldn't miss.
Hate Plus (PC)Release: August 19
What It Is: Christine Love 's visual novel Analogue: A Hate Story was met with much praise; Hate Plus is its sequel, where you interact with a young female AI.
Why You Should Care: Love is a great writer and her passion for creating a narrative shines through. She challenges the audience with her characters and takes the creative steps necessary to make her stories memorable. Hate Plus should be no different, as the official site forecasts it as, "A dark visual novel about transhumanism, cosplay, cake-baking, and the slow patriarchal erosion of freedoms taken for granted." Love isn't afraid to tackle complex subject matter and she's intelligent about it, making text adventures feel fresh and exciting again.
Hatsune Miku: Project
DIVA F (PlayStation 3)
Release: August 27
What It Is: The only rhythm game available in English
featuring lots of J-pop songs sung by virtual idol Hatsune Miku.
Why You Should Care: If you're a fan of Japanese culture,
there's a good chance you've already got this on preorder, but even if you're
not, Hatsune Miku has become an icon across the Pacific. Based on the vocal synthesizer of the same
name, tons of songs have been ascribed to this blue pig-tailed virtual star.
Even non-otaku rhythm game fans should consider Miku, though, as it's
reminiscent of old-school Bemani games, with strict button timing and some
incredibly difficult songs. With no new
Rock Band or Guitar Hero games in sight, this could just be your finger-tapping
Sweet Fuse: At Your
Side (PSP)
Release: August 27
What It Is: A visual novel where you visit Mega man creator Keiji Inafune's theme park and encounter puzzles and romance.
Why You Should Care: Come on, you're trying to rescue Inafune; does it get any better than that? Yes, the premise is crazy enough,
and it comes from Inafune's company Comcept, but that's only scratching the
surface. Aksys Games has been picking some interesting and quirky titles to localize,
like underground hits 999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors and Zero
Escape: Virtue's Last Reward. With Sweet Fuse's 14 different endings and dating-sim elements intertwined with the action-packed tale, Sweet Fuse: At Your Side is
sure to keep things interesting. Let's not forget, the promise of unique
characters that test your ability to keep your composure or "blow your
fuse." Now that's the type of visual novel drama we're looking for.
Email the author Kimberley Wallace, or follow on Twitter, and Game Informer.


text:
When is a game too successful to be considered indie? Frictional Games' indie horror game, Amnesia: The Dark Descent has become a million seller.
Oddly, figuring out the exact sales numbers actually takes some work due to the game's inclusion in the Humble Indie Bundle and Potato Sack. Without accounting for these bundles, the game has managed to sell over 700K units. Admitting that a number of bundle purchasers likely own Amnesia already, Frictional's Thomas Grip calculates that the game could have sold almost 1.4 million units.
"The figures themselves are far beyond any guesses we would have made two years ago," Grip explains in a blog post (via Joystiq). "It is also insane, because this number is actually higher than it was around three months after initial launch." Certainly, word of mouth has helped propel the game's status and sales well after its initial release.
Reaching a million sales is an accomplishment for any game, let alone a game that cost only $360,000 to make. "It has since earned more than ten times that. Take that investors we talked to in 2009!"


text:
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- Merck & Co. said Wednesday it has resubmitted its application for a new combination cholesterol drug to the Food and Drug Administration, which rejected the experimental medication in March.
The drugmaker is seeking approval for a pill that combines a generic version of Lipitor, the top-selling drug of all time, with Merck's cholesterol medicine Zetia. The company said in a statement that the FDA judged the drug application complete and ready for review. A decision is expected in the first half of 2013.
Merck's experimental drug, still known only as MK-0653C, contains medicines that fight high cholesterol in two different ways to reduce risk of heart attack and stroke.
Lipitor, known chemically as atorvastatin, is part of the widely used class of drugs called statins that reduce the amount of cholesterol naturally produced in the liver. Zetia, on the other hand, reduces the amount of cholesterol absorbed from the food the patient eats.
Merck shares rose 40 cents to close at $41.34 in trading Wednesday.


text:
Netscape co-founder and prominent tech investor Marc Andreessen famously noted that "software is eating the world." Unfortunately, it's also eating the lunch of most enterprises, including federal agencies.
For all the talk about wasteful government IT spending, little is said about the costs agencies pay to patch buggy software, a consequence of the industry's predisposition to release their wares now and fix them later. For Robert Jack, CIO of the U.S. Marine Corps, those costs aren't incidental.
"We have roughly 300,000 people, of which a third have day-to-day access to the enterprise network," Jack said at a recent forum on cybersecurity. "I have to defend the network at the desktop or end-user device. I have over 450 registered systems that are regressed to 10 significant versions. When we get a patch from a vendor, we have to go out and test that against all that."
He continued, "Think about the labor hours where I have to touch [and administer patches on] all those devices. And that's just for one patch." Every week, dozens of new vulnerabilities are catalogued by US-CERT, the government's computer emergency readiness team, offering a glimpse of the headaches Jack and CIOs like him face.
Speaking to the software industry at large, Jack said bluntly, "You're killing me."
[ As cloud and mobile proliferates, federal IT leaders should take more data-centric approach to security. Read Secure Data, Not Devices. ]
The staggering cost of software bugs is hard to nail down. However, a Cambridge University study released earlier this year estimated that finding and fixing coding problems costs software makers and the global economy $312 billion a year. That doesn't reflect what customers must also spend to patch and maintain that software on their networks.
The problem, however, goes well beyond the mechanics of software and system maintenance. It also goes to the heart of network security and the growing risks associated with unknown software vulnerabilities, Jack said. Having spent 40 years in charge of command, control, communications, computers and cyber operations for the Air Force, the Defense Department and now the Marine Corps, Jack knows the problems as well as anyone.
Software by its nature is a work in progress. While vendors can't anticipate every problem, some of which are spawned when software interacts with other software on a network, vendors are making too many calculated compromises in order to ram their products and updates into production, Jack said. But worse, they're exposing organizations and their executives to growing liabilities if something goes wrong.
Jack pointed to recent reports, which he didn't specify, indicating that 25% of hospital operating room liability lawsuits are now tied to software coding problems. Lawsuits based on software failures are also becoming a big concern for the auto industry, he said, and the issue has prompted high-level discussions within the Defense Department.
It's only a matter of time before the high-profile enterprises become targets for liability lawyers looking to exploit software mishaps, Jack warned, adding that those in positions of authority ought to consider "looking for some big-time insurance."


text:
A duo of small businesses is once again teaming up to hold their fourth Scarecrow Festival in Skippack Village on Sept. 21 from 10 a.m. – 2 p.m. The two shops, Heart's Desire and Floral & Hardy, are located across the street from one another and often combine efforts to hold special events.
"For this festival e do more than just make scarecrows," said Lowell, the owner-operator of Floral & Hardy, "there is also face painting, pumpkin decorating, games and photo ops."
The festival is geared toward children ages 10 and younger, and both shops host different activities on their premises. Registration for the main event, the building of the scarecrows, takes place at Heart's Desire and the building of the scarecrows takes place at Floral & Hardy – which is a garden center. At Floral & Hardy, Lowell and his staff set up a number of outdoor stations where participants put together the different components of their scarecrows.
"We set up our yard as a scarecrow 'production facility'," he explained. "All that we ask the kids to bring are clothes for the scarecrow. We supply everything else. There are stations for the stakes, the stuffing, the 'sack' heads, ropes, paint and decorations like buttons, feathers and patches."
Lowell said that building a scarecrow takes about a half-hour, and once the scarecrows are complete, participants can either take them home or put them on display at the garden center.
"Last year we had 79 scarecrows. This year we bought enough to make 100 scarecrows," he said.
The cost to participate in the Scarecrow Festival is just $15, with all proceeds raised going to support a cat rescue – the Kitty Adoption team, or K.A.T. This is the same organization where Lowell adopted Basil, Floral & Hardy's friendly cat, who can often be found lounging among the many plants and decorations at the garden center.
"Fall is an amazing time of year and this is a fun fall event," said Lowell, "it is inexpensive and hands-on – a neat was to start the season. We see it as a lead in to the Family Day event that (Floral & Hardy, Heart's Desire and Sharp Unique Gifts for Men – another neighboring business) all put on together. Family Day takes place Oct. 19 and we will have a corn maze, an all-day kid's concert, a Root Beer fest and more – and it's all 'on the house'.
Floral & Hardy is located at 4007 Skippack Pike, Skippack, Pennsylvania 19474, and Heart's Desire is located at 4006 Skippack Pike, Skippack, Pennsylvania 19474 (Behind Mal's Diner).
To find out more about the businesses mentioned above visit the following webpages:


text:
The Other Wall
Rebecca L. Stein 19 April 2011
It has become commonplace to describe the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt as Facebook or Twitter revolutions; and almost as commonplace to respond that the role of social media in popular insurgencies has been exaggerated. Less attention, however, has been paid to states' use of these technologies as PR and counterinsurgency tools.
Look at Israel, for instance. Over the last few years, a growing number of Israeli ministries and other state institutions have taken up Facebook, Flickr, Twitter and YouTube to disseminate the official line and to manage Israel's international reputation, particularly during times of military confrontation. For Israel, there is a proud contrast here with its Arab neighbours, which have tended to see the internet as a dangerous vehicle of popular insurgency, to be repressed rather than harnessed. In the past year alone, Israeli budgets for social media work have increased dramatically. The learning curve has been steep and uneven, as senior officials are quick to admit, while the long-term political effects of the project remain to be seen: it's too early to say what their impact will be on Israeli relations with neighbouring Arab countries, on international perceptions of the Israeli regime, or on the lives of Palestinians living under occupation.
After the failed Israeli military campaign in Lebanon in 2006, a new body called the National Information Directorate was set up to manage media relations in times of military crisis. In January 2010, an Internet and New Media department was established in the prime minister's office, responsible for co-ordinating internet work across government branches and ministries with the aim of improving 'public relations advocacy'. By last August, the prime minister's office had launched its own YouTube, Twitter, Flickr and Facebook accounts, the last of them updated in Hebrew, English and Arabic. Two weeks ago, Binyamin Netanyahu became the third world leader, after Barack Obama and David Cameron, to be interviewed live on YouTube – this from a man famous for spurning the traditional news media, both domestic and international.
The Israel Defence Forces dates its involvement in social media from an experimental YouTube venture initiated by two young soldiers in the early days of the Israeli incursion into Gaza in 2008-9. Some of the videos uploaded by the IDF – including aerial footage of the assault and video blogs from spokespeople – were watched more than two million times. The IDF used YouTube for another sustained publicity campaign after the deadly raid on the relief flotilla last May. But the broad circulation of military-sponsored videos of the event did little to temper the fierce international condemnation of Israel's actions, strengthening the case for a more substantial state commitment to social media. The IDF's Twitter account, active since October 2009, is updated around the clock with official announcements; a Flickr photostream was launched six months ago. The IDF also gives frequent briefings to international bloggers, and has plans to embed bloggers on future military missions.
This odd hybrid of popular new media practices and more traditional modes of statecraft owes a lot to the 'digital diplomacy' practised in Washington, where 'government 2.0' has been pioneered. The head of the Israeli Internet and New Media department's first fact-finding trip last year was to meet with members of the White House and State Department new media teams. But 'there are no rules about how to bring the government into Facebook,' a senior staff member from the prime minister's office told me. 'We have to invent them.'
The shift away from an official military idiom towards the language of personalised informality hasn't been easy for the IDF. Facebook, with its high level of interactivity, is thought to present the best opportunity but also the biggest obstacle. The standard Facebook template, with a 'wall' which anyone can write on, is thought to be unfeasible, because of the barrage of comments expected from detractors. During the 2008-9 Gaza incursion, the IDF's YouTube channel was initially left open to comments: it was closed the next day. IDF programmers are currently at work on an alternative, more tightly controlled template. Questions posted to the Facebook wall by everyday users will be screened and approved in advance, and then answered by IDF spokesmen; from there, users will be invited to participate in an open discussion forum.
Officials admit to being overwhelmed and understaffed when it comes to social media: just one person monitors the Foreign Ministry's Arabic Facebook page, for example, and only during business hours. At the end of March, the Israeli Government Press Office took down its Facebook page two days after it launched, because it couldn't cope with the wall posts of 'anti-Israeli propagandists and hate spreaders': comments like 'Israel operates an entrenched system of racial apartheid' had been rampant, much to the confusion of loyal subscribers who called for more active monitoring. In the same week, however, the state scored a Facebook victory when the site agreed to remove a page entitled 'The Third Palestinian Intifada' in response to pressure from Israel's Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Ministry and heightened public anxiety about the ways that Facebook was providing a platform for anti-Israeli incitement.
It's still far from clear, however, how much control the state will be able to exert over Facebook and other social media sites. 'We cannot but be impressed,' the IDF spokesman Avi Benayahu recently said, 'at how Western technology harms regimes… One cell phone camera can harm a regime more than any intelligence operation can.' The regimes he had in mind were those toppled or threatened by popular uprisings in the Arab world. When I asked Israeli officials about the use of social media by anti-occupation activists, Jewish and Palestinian, on both sides of the Green Line, they didn't want to talk about it. And none of them noted the resonance between the metaphorical Facebook wall and the concrete Separation Wall, both of which represent attempts by the state to control the political playing field.


text:
Wait till the religious fanatics hear this. I have already heard claim from them years ago that radioactive decay is not constant, and that's why carbon dating can not be trusted. The fossils are not a few million years old. The Earth is only a few thousand years old.
I bet these religious fanatics will now site this article as their proof!
The problem is that religious fanatics already got a hold of it and accept the results as fact without considering any further review.
Sort of like how the internet science fanboys believed in string theory, dark matter, dark energy etc... without any proof?
^Steven Colbert, that is.
Stephen Colbert, that is.
>>That's not how science works.
There's three scenarios:
1) Scientific consensus agreeing with your belief
2) Scientific consensus holding no opinion on your belief
3) Scientific consensus disagreeing with your belief.
Scientifically-minded people are just as prone to choosing to believe things without evidence, which is perfectly acceptable. (People misunderstanding philosophy of science aside.) If you look at Hawking vs. the black hole information paradox, or Hoyle vs. the Big Bang, or any number of other examples, you'll see people stake claims all the time before the facts are in. It's okay.
The key difference is between a scientifically-minded person and a non-scientifically minded person is when the scientific facts disagree with one's belief. A scientifically-minded person will set that belief aside (perhaps with a caveat that the scientific consensus might later be overturned). A non-scientifically minded person will not.
Note that I am using the term scientifically-minded, not scientists, as if a physicist who is currently working in macroeconomics will somehow lose his scientific mindset.
I think you use the word "believe" differently.
When a religious person believes something, it's a dogma - i.e. an unquestionable tenant of their faith.
When a scientist "believes" something, then they will say that they are just guessing that it's true, but would change their mind with no information.
I don't think you should use the word "believe" to mean the same in both cases.
>>When a religious person believes something, it's a dogma - i.e. an unquestionable tenant of their faith.
>>I don't think you should use the word "believe" to mean the same in both cases.
No, not really. The meaning is identical. A belief is something you're currently using as your sort of operating set of ideas: this is how the world is. In any case, they can be overturned by facts. The point I was trying to make is that a scientifically-minded person will allow facts to sway his beliefs, but an
Except that, for all it's vaunted ideals, science history in the real world is replete with examples where the establishment CONTINUED to ignore contrary evidence until a new generation of scientists emerged with a less dogmatic viewpoint.
The most recent example I can think of is the ongoing issue between MOND (or MOG) and Dark Matter, where the existence of Dark Matter is the establishment viewpoint.
The establishment has, for example, claimed the Chandra observations of the Bullet Cluster collisions defini
Except that string theory, dark matter, dark energy, etc, are all theories in that they invite invitation to poke holes in them. Science is an open process that allows anyone to experiment with it and often encourages you to defy the belief in the theory. Most often the giant scientific leaps are when you discover certain properties that don't fit in the theory, or you simply suspend the belief in the theory to find another one that could also be true.
Religion on the other hand, requires your belief, faith in that belief, and shuns any notion that it could be wrong.
So yes - if you know of internet science fanboys who said that String Theory MUST be true, than its sort of the same. But there are more of internet science fanboys who say that String Theory COULD be true, and that it requires more verification to either justify or nullify it.
Quite a few people have talked about believe or not believing in dark matter and dark energy.
But it's the same as the problem with the word "evolution". There's the fact of evolution (we see it happening) and then the theory (evolution through natural selection).
In the same way, dark matter and dark energy are FACTS. We know that without them, theory does not match observations. So we name that different dark matter and dark energy. That's a fact and cannot be disproven (unless, I suppose, the actual ex
Actually, String theory, dark matter, and dark energy are hypothesis, not theories. Theories are hypothesis which have come up with tests to prove or invalidate them. Then the tests are run, and scientists come to a general agreement that the hypothesis appear to be valid for some range of phenomenon. Then they are elevated to theories.
String theorists have not been able to come up with any tests which can be performed. I believe the same situation exists for dark crap.
I figured as much. The claimed variance in rate of decay is so miniscule that it doesn't change anything, not that they'd be willing to acknowledge anything that disagrees with their views.
Luckily the detected difference is somewhere around
Luckily the detected difference is somewhere around
Of course, it would be more interesting if this is a real effect. After all, "That's strange" is much more exciting than "We were right".
The question is that if the difference is that small now, what guarantees do we have that it was always so small and insignificant in the past? Especially when you consider that the Sun is not the only source of neutrinos and radiation in the galaxy.
Depends on the energy. (A more detailed energy slicing won't be necessary) Low energy neutrinos order of few KeV, come mostly from the sun. High energy neutrinos Above the few KeV threshold mostly comes from Cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. As for cosmic neutrinos, well good luck with that! I work in a neutrino experiment (ANTARES) , and I wish that we can detect cosmic neutrinos with abundance, it's just that there isn't enough to influence anything.
What I meant were those caused by transient and relatively nearby events like supernovae or gamma-ray bursts -- things that haven't happened since we had detectors for neutrinos or even knew what neutrinos were. We haven't had a supernova that was visible to the naked eye in Earth's night-time sky in quite a long time, yet when an extremely energetic event like that does happen it may affect the cosmic neutrinos we receive.
Or maybe someone knows a reason why it couldn't possibly do that. My intented po
We haven't had a supernova that was visible to the naked eye in Earth's night-time sky in quite a long time
1987 [wikipedia.org] wasn't very long ago.
SN 1987A was a supernova in the outskirts of the Tarantula Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a nearby dwarf galaxy. It occurred approximately 51.4 kiloparsecs from Earth,[1] close enough that it was visible to the naked eye. It could be seen from the Southern Hemisphere. It was the closest observed supernova since SN 1604, which occurred in the Milky Way itself. The light from the supernova reached Earth on February 23, 1987. As the first supernova discovered in 1987, it was
We haven't had a supernova that was visible to the naked eye in Earth's night-time sky in quite a long time
1987 [wikipedia.org] wasn't very long ago.
SN 1987A was a supernova in the outskirts of the Tarantula Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a nearby dwarf galaxy. It occurred approximately 51.4 kiloparsecs from Earth,[1] close enough that it was visible to the naked eye. It could be seen from the Southern Hemisphere. It was the closest observed supernova since SN 1604, which occurred in the Milky Way itself. The light from the supernova reached Earth on February 23, 1987. As the first supernova discovered in 1987, it was labeled "1987A". Its brightness peaked in May with an apparent magnitude of about 3 and slowly declined in the following months. It was the first opportunity for modern astronomers to see a supernova up close.
Approximately three hours before the visible light from SN 1987A reached the Earth, a burst of neutrinos was observed at three separate neutrino observatories. This is due to the neutrino emission (which occurs simultaneously with core collapse) preceding the emission of visible light (which occurs only after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface). At 7:35am Universal time, Kamiokande II detected 11 antineutrinos, IMB 8 antineutrinos and Baksan 5 antineutrinos, in a burst lasting less than 13 seconds.
I really didn't know there was one that recent. The event I had in mind when I wrote the previous post was the 1604 supernova you mentioned. Thank you for setting me straight on that, and for answering the question of whether such events could significantly increase neutrino flux on Earth.
Actually, you mean that you are not detecting enough influence to believe that there are a lot of cosmic neutrinos. Whole different can of worms.
You have expectations of what cosmic neutrinos will cause that you can detect. Beliefs, hypothesis, theories. Not certainties.
Since you do not have the methods to produce quantities of cosmic energy level neutrinos, you are stuck with a very small number of recorded events per month. 31 events of the same sort is a statistically usable number of events. You ain't
Luckily the detected difference is somewhere around
You don't personally know any anti-science religious folks, do you? The post you're responding to hits the bullseye. The scientific review and conclusions drawn from the data will proceed over the next several months/years. But the meme that "they did a study and found that radioactive decay was affected by many different factors, therefore carbon dating can be tossed out and therefore the book of Genesis as written in my English translation must be accepted verbatim" will circulate via blog and email and
Luckily the detected difference is somewhere around
So the the Earth is "around" 4,500,000,000 years old and the difference is "around"
Uh yeah, I'm pretty sure they did the statistical analysis. Besides being absolutely required to get a paper published, it's likely the only way you'd ever see anything in the first place. The data isn't going to be a nice straight line that all of a sudden takes a dip, obvious to anyone who looks at the graph.
What's an "evolutionist"? Isn't that kook terminology for "biologist"?
Carbon dating isn't used for anything very old, though. There's a lot of guesswork you'll see involved with carbon dating, but not with the radioactive decay part of the deal. Often the atrifact you want to date is found next to something that carbon dating can be used for, so you have to make some assumption about whether they are related. For one site, that's guesswork. Once you have many sites with related artifacts, that's science - there are certainly times when individual sites were dated poorly (
Why are people modding this up? This quote is 30 years old. And carbon dating has almost nothing to do with evolution. For anything longer than 100,000 year or so, you use radioactive dating.
Good luck. The observed variations are way too small to suddenly make the Earth 500 years old or dinosaurs even less.
Radioactive decay ISN'T constant.
It's statistical.
'What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed.'"
The fact that the scientists who are working on it are quite aware of what they're proposing is comforting.
Obviously, given what we currently think about radioactive decay and neutrinos, skepticism is warranted and I'd be surprised if any scientist came out and said otherwise.
This article says, in effect, "Interesting idea. Doesn't make sense with what we know though. Lets study it more and get more data." Which is exactly what I'd want to see out of the science community. In other words, this is a non-
According to TFA, neutrinos shouldn't be altered much by solar flares which seems to be an almost slamdunk argument against the solar flare part of the claim.
While I am extremely sceptical as well they do provide an argument to explain this: some flares are caused by some event in the sun's core. Of course means the rate change would occur (probably substantially) before the flare since the neutrinos would arrive at almost the speed of light whereas the propagation of material/energy to cause a flare would presumably take a lot longer. Without seeing their data, I don't know if they are in agreement with that nor whether they have accounted for cosmic ray activ
The point that much of the data examined comes from older labs where they have not gone and looked for possible causes in variations also seems to be a strong one
Yeah, from here the first step would be to set up experiments to see if the variation in decay rates really exists, followed by experiments to determine the patten in variation. From there, we can decide whether we think the sun is involved or not, and if so whether neutrinos have anything to do with it.
According to TFA, neutrinos shouldn't be altered much by solar flares
And according to that *very same article*, the researchers responded, pointing out that some flares are caused by core events, and so may correlate with neutrino flux changes.
So, what, did you just stop reading half-way through?
no. The scientist proposing neutrino's are causing this is ALSO proposing this:
"We therefore consider it possible that events in the core may influence flares"
It really reads like the believe they fund something and then concoct a chain of events that are counter to what we know; which is fine. It certainly is't enough to draw any conclusions from; which they seem to be doing. That is wrong.
When something comes a long and takes what we know and changes it,. it's a wonderful thing. You do need substa
no. The scientist proposing neutrino's are causing this is ALSO proposing this
The scientists said, and I quote:
"Jenkins and Fischbach write that we know some flares are tied to events deep inside the sun. "
Assuming they aren't lying, then it's already well-understood that some flares are caused by events deep in the sun. They then conclude that it may be possible that solar flares can affect neutron flux in some cases.
So your original statement:
"According to TFA, neutrinos shouldn't be altered much by s
Neutrinos do not have to be influenced by solar flares, or sunspots of either type (hot or cold). Sunspots appear to be influenced by what appear to be currents which circulate below the surface of the Sun. Beyond that, not much is even guessed about what drives those currents. We are not even certain that they exist. (I believe, I believe, I believe)
It is extremely possible that the processes which create neutrinos fluctuate, and eventually signs of those fluctuations make it to the surface (it takes neutr
"Starburst" by Fred Pohl, except it was a beam of kaons that influenced radioactive decay, not neutrinos. Hilarity ensued.
If the views stated are correct, then it appears to be a healthy skepticism. In other words "Show us the money". If the data is significant and cannot be explained by being from studies done on old equipment (in other words, if current techniques and equipment are used) and the noticed effect is still there, then the data will rule out.
It's the way science is always done. But until there's some meaningful verification, these results are inherently unreliable.
They are, and they even talk about why they are skeptical and what it takes to change that. Just like 99% of all scientists when discussing things in the field of expertise.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Yes there is.. You will need to define what constitutes extraordinary evidence. Just saying the platitude doesn't do it.
Absolutely! Which is why more experiments need to be done.
I don't think the original article came across as definitive. They've noticed a potential something that's very *very* interesting. Skepticism is absolutely warranted, and more work needs to be done, but its interesting nonetheless.
But isn't the claim that decay rates are constant and unaffected by anything else extraordinary in itself? Nothing else we know about works that way.
isn't the claim that decay rates are constant and unaffected by anything else extraordinary in itself?
Not really. There are four known forces in the universe: gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear.
The forces we deal outside of nuclear physics are gravitational and electromagnetic, of which the electromagnetic is the strongest. The forces that act in radioactive decay are the weak and strong nuclear forces. The weak nuclear force is 10^40 times (that is the number one followed by f
and extraordinary responsibility.
Now if you excuse me, I have to take my bratty nephew to the 'library'. We'll talk later.
I don't care who might abuse the data in what way -- As Doctor Gregory Sullivan (a skeptic of these results) said in the Discover article, "Data is data. That's the final arbiter." If nuclear decay rates are varying, I very strongly doubt neutrinos are doing it.
I think it was Isaac Asimov who said that major scientific revolutions generally don't come with a scientist shouting "Eureka!" They generally start with a scientist looking at the data and saying "That's funny..." If other researches look at the nuclear decay rates, and also see this sort of variability... That would be really, really funny -- something Really Really Big that we are, at the moment, completely clueless about.
I'm quite confident that the effect, if any, won't much change the dating of fossils, which is what the 4004 BC type creationists want.
...major scientific revolutions generally don't come with a scientist shouting "Eureka!" They generally start with a scientist looking at the data and saying "That's funny..."
Actually, many seem to be preceded by the often paradoxical exclamation, "Good news everyone!" [wikipedia.org]
There are several papers posted on the arXiv.org by Jenkins and Fischbach, this one [arxiv.org] is my favorite. It's about measurements done on samples of a radioactive isotope of gold - the samples are shaped differently and this alters, presumably, some aspect of their interaction with neutrinos.
Radioactive decay is not constant, it's random. What's constant is the probability that any given radionuclide will decay in a given unit of time. We only see constants like the half life come up because statistical effects smooth out the quantum randomness.
Information is what is occurring and data in the interpretation of the phenomenon. That is why you can have two observers both with "DATA" to back up their finding coming to a different conclusion. Data is not an absolute.
I think you have that exactly backwards. Data would be a list of numbers. It only becomes information when it is analyzed and means something, such as the company grew 23% over the past year. You are not necessarily informed when handed a list of numbers, unless you know how to interpret the them. If these scientist added me their raw data, I most likely wouldn't have a clue what they meant.
Data is absolute, interpretation is not necessarily absolute but can gt pretty damn close to 1.
IceCube and Amanda (among many other experiments) have been running for many years collecting data on neutrino flux. Archeological digs have been dating many objects over the same period of time. With the sheer amount of data available, it seems like it should be straightforward (perhaps not easy) to answer this question.
The article lists a reason for mistrusting the data as "the researches didn't take the data themselves." That's often the case in science!
I do agree though, with great changes in physics
We already know that some radioactive decay results in the release of a neutrino or anti-neutrino. The release of a neutrino is the same as the absorption of an anti-neutrino and vice versa. Ergo, it should be expected that variations in total numbers of neutrinos of the specific energy linked to that specific type of decay event would result in a change in the number of decay events recorded. I simply do not see where this impossibility claim comes from, unless they are claiming that neutrinos of the wrong type/energy are involved.
We also already know that what appears random is often the result of never being able to have enough data and never being able to make the step sizes infinitely small in the calculations; that randomness, per-se, is actually pretty rare in nature. (Indeed, randomness would seem to violate the requirement that information cannot be created or destroyed. An event is information and physics prohibits information simply "happening".)
It then follows that radioactive decay almost certainly cannot be a totally random event and therefore almost certainly cannot be absolutely invariate.
(Indeed, plenty of other people claim to have altered radioactive decay rates, so the claim itself isn't that revolutionary. I'm shocked that the scientific community is so ignorant as to what it itself has been saying for decades. If publishing papers is that important, then reading them must be just as important.)
The release of a neutrino is the same as the absorption of an anti-neutrino and vice versa. Ergo, it should be expected that variations in total numbers of neutrinos of the specific energy linked to that specific type of decay event would result in a change in the number of decay events recorded
The chances of a neutron encountering an electron and a neutrino of exactly the proper energy at exactly the same time are vanishingly small.
We also already know that what appears random is often the result of never being able to have enough data and never being able to make the step sizes infinitely small in the calculations; that randomness, per-se, is actually pretty rare in nature.
Bell's theorem [wikipedia.org] tells us that quantum randomness cannot be explained by a lack of information (hidden variables).
Indeed, randomness would seem to violate the requirement that information cannot be created or destroyed.
Where do you get that idea? There is no law of conservation of information. We know that the entropy of the universe always increases. Therefore the information in the universe also increases.
If you don't see the problem and highly trained theoretical physicists do, you'd be better off asking them where the problem is rather than declaring them wrong.
Since it seems that highly trained physicists are divided over whether a problem exists or not, and since it is well-known that the neutrino flux is bloody hard to observe, let alone measure with any accuracy, you might want to ask those highly trained physicists what they think rather than assuming you know.
I think you're misapprehending the controversy here. One side says "This data shows that neutrinos affect radioactive decay, which is a problem for physics", the other says "That data doesn't show what you think it does, so there's no problem for physics". Nobody except you is saying "neutrinos affect radioactive decay, but it's not a problem for physics".
No, that is not what it says. Go read it again. And don't bother coming back. I hear K5 is looking for obnoxious and offensive readers, you should fit in nicely there. (Well, let's face it, K5 hasn't got any other sorts of readers. Everyone else left.)
I am reminded of a particular xkcd main times while perusing a slashdot science story. http://xkcd.com/675/ [xkcd.com]
Oh, not in response to your response, more to the GP. Though I think you meant an proton/neutron and a neutrino of the right energy meeting at exactly the same time since we're talking about radioactive decay.
Though I think you meant an proton/neutron and a neutrino of the right energy meeting at exactly the same time since we're talking about radioactive decay.
This result is based on the decay rate of manganese-54, which is either +/-beta decay. So it's either a neutron decaying to a proton, electron and an antineutrino, or a proton decaying to a neutron, positron and a neutrino. In reverse you'd need all 3 particles.
well, really the neutrino is needed just to conserve lepton number so it could be:
the relationship I was getting at was more along the lines of electron capture vs positron emission than time reversing normal beta+/- decay.
We know that the entropy of the universe always increases. Therefore the information in the universe also increases.
Shouldn't that be that information decreases?
Shouldn't that be that information decreases?
Nope. The more entropy in a system, the more information is in it. Very ordered systems have very little information content. It's the same concept as why a file containing random data can't be compressed, but a file containing nothing but the word "booger" a billion times over can be compressed to barely larger than that one word. Because the former has a lot of information in it (even if it's not meaningful) and the latter does not. You'll sometimes even h
Actually, I believe that some people have proposed something like laws of conservation of "information".
The entropy level of the UNIVERSE constantly increases, but we can see locally that there is a lot of organization (anti-entropy). Galaxies, Suns, planets, life, etc.
As the entropy of the universe increases, information decreases - there is more homogeneity, less differentiation.
I simply do not see where this impossibility claim comes from
From the article: "'They're looking for something with a very much larger effect than the force of neutrinos, but that doesn't show up any other way,' he says."
That is, your inability to see is a result of your innumeracy. You have said "X effects Y" without any reference to the quantitative, numerical size of the effect.
The people who actually work on these things for a living have an excellent sense of the magnitudes without having to do a detailed calculation, and know that if the variation
The modern age is way too primitive, filled with small-minded bigots who prefer to make snide remarks than answer a perfectly good question. I did not say the physicists were wrong, I did not state that neutrinos were the cause of the effect they observed, I merely noted that neutrinos must cause a non-zero effect (no matter how close to zero that is, it is still non-zero) and therefore the decay rate CANNOT be an absolute, universal, unalterable constant. It is neither rocket science to understand that not
Variability in half life/decay rates is unlikely, and this data is not nearly enough to prove a significant effect. Because of the massive amount of research done on radioactive decay as part of various nations bomb making projects, looking for ways to get a hyper-fast reaction with less material or get criticality at all from some borderline case substances, this data would have to be supported by a quality new major research project to be taken at all seriously. Probably, the study would have to get a similar 33 day cycle for the same isotopes as these reports, AND find the same cycle for a bunch of others, AND rule out some of the possible alternate causes by doubleblind testing.
If that's done by some place such as MIT or one of the national labs, and the data glitch persists, then it starts counting as very significant. For just one reason, Supersymetry theories predict short lived supersymetric particles such as the Selectron and the Sneutrino. The supersymetric versions of particles have substantially more rest mass than the regular versions. Neutrinos that couple more strongly to neutron cross section of a nucleus could arguably actually be Sneutrinos. To live long enough to cross the 8 light minute gap between Earth and Sun, they would have to be moving at incredibly close to the speed of light, much more so than for regular neutrinos, which are already very close (around 99.0%). Somewhere around 99.97% of C, you get enough time dilation on Sneutrinos that they could routinely make it across the gap.
So, solar emission models for this effect could be predicting both a way to experimentally validate Supersymetry AND the existence of a reaction deep inside the solar core that produces such incredibly energetic particles. Furthermore, you could derive the energy of the initial solar reaction by sending a space probe outward towards Mars and perhaps beyond, and having it run constant testing on a radioactive isotope sample on-board to see if/when the effect falls off. Such an experiment could be incorporated into an existing planned mission, say another Mars Observer or Cassini to Saturn style probe.
That's why this is interesting - it may be a 10,000 to 1 longshot, but a. If it's true, it's a major step for both subatomic physics and astrophysics, and b. if it's true, it makes some predictions where we can do further experiments and refine the theories, and some of these should be in a reasonable cost range compared to alternates (such as building a particle accelerator from the Earth to the Moon to possibly get a little closer to proving/disproving Supersymetry).
Variability of radioactivity rates is actually guaranteed under certain conditions, like under a large flux of W particles.
When I first saw the original article earlier this week, my immediate reaction was, "Bait & Switch. Better to sit this one out." -This seems like another small scale version of the Fake Moon Landing; innocently presented to invite curiosity, and then behead those foolish enough to stick their necks out and question conventional wisdom and authority. A great way to remind people that they will be punished for thinking without permission.
We'll have to see how this unfolds, but I'm getting a witch-hunt
Wow, you are really, really, just looking for things to back you pet conspiracy way of thinking, aren't you.
Lets look, shall we:
First off, there is you violent innocence approach to the subject. That tells people right there you are looking for thing to fit your predisposed beliefs
Secondly, The people being Skeptical list why there are being skeptical and what needs to be done to remove their skepticism on this matter.
Thirdly, Science only progress by finding out new things and challenging existing ideas an
I started to address the points in your post, but your grammar is garbled up in a way which is abnormal for you, so I thought you might be in a weird head-space and that you might be regretting having hit the "Submit" button.
Would you like a do-over or should I just jump in and eviscerate your post, donkey-speak and all?
A great way to remind people that they will be punished for thinking without permission.
Yeah, or further analysis will show the effect is real, they'll discover amazing new physics, win a Nobel Prize and get their names in every future physics text.
Sure there may be some resistance to and skepticism of the idea (and this "hm I'm skeptical" isn't even close to the resistance some ideas that successfully changed science forever faced), but that's only natural when the hypothesis seems to contradict existing e
These guys claim to have observed systematic variation in decay rates. They then theorized that the variation is connected with solar neutrinos. Invalidating the theory (it seems implausible to me) in no way invalidates the observations.
This idea that decay rates depend on environmental factors is well known as a fertile field for crackpots. Here's a FAQ I wrote about it.
FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?
There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.
Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.
He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.
Jenkins and Fischbach claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. Their latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error.
Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.
He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.
YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1 [arxiv.org]
Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156 [arxiv.org]
Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318 [arxiv.org]
Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248 [arxiv.org]
F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956
Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623 [cornell.edu]
Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141 [arxiv.org]
(Disclaimer: I don't expect to see significant breakthroughs any time soon in the quest to identify a discrete "simple" mechanism at Planck scale or similar, but that hasn't stopped Wolfram and unconnected others treating the possibility seriously. The extremely limited experimental simulations possible on foreseeable computers don't show signs of ruling out the possibility, so the thoughts below are confined to such a model and treat field theories et al as emergent.)
If there is a hypothetical microstructu
Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.


text:
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Mar 2009 19:49 UTC
The Atom processor, the only bright spot on Intel's balance sheet, will soon no longer be manufactured by Intel itself (CNet has more). Intel has signed an agreement with the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), outsourcing the production of the successful chip to Taiwan. While it's not the first time Intel outsources production of its silicon, it is still an unusual move for the company to outsource the production of such a major chip.
Permalink for comment 351463
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Really unusual / relevant?
by Ford Prefect on Tue 3rd Mar 2009 17:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Really unusual / relevant?"
Yeah I'm wondering about this, seriously. Everybody is talking about the netbook market, but really. It is some gadget some people want to have and can afford. A clever way of creating an entirely new market. But this market will be repleted very quickly.
And about even smaller devices: Intel still has a lot of work to do. Ok I understand the idea of packing atom into a SoC design. Current implications? It will take them quite some time for the first prototype..