Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Extent of Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches Record Levels

delt0r Re:Krill dis-information (593 comments)

It is like when people talk about ocean acidification and fish. I always tell them not to worry. There won't be any fish left long before that. In fact we have already run out of a lot. I eat fish for the simple reason that i will be able to tell my grandchildren what they tasted like.

yesterday
top

Sci-Fi Authors and Scientists Predict an Optimistic Future

delt0r Re:I don't think they're associated... (186 comments)

You do realize people have been saying this since society's could write. So it's nothing new. And yet our actual futures just keep getting better. So it is also wrong.

2 days ago
top

Islamic State "Laptop of Doom" Hints At Plots Including Bubonic Plague

delt0r Re: But is it reaslistic? (369 comments)

Well in the H1N1 case the WHO did launch an investigation as to why H1N1 was declared a pandemic. Turned out that 2 advisers that pushed for it had a substantial tamiflu stake. The Data simply never supported it at all. In fact it was a more mild flu season than the previous year. No it wasn't because of tamiflu.

This also illustrates some very serious problem when studying these things. The data is of such poor quality, mostly because doctors collect it, that it is hardly usable at all. For example in NZ, if you had any flu like symptoms that year, it was reported as a H1N1 case. Clearly that is not how it works.

Bird flu and SARS where very similar in that 1 perhaps 2 quite young people died and then everyone jumped on the "new disease" bandwagon. A post analisis of the data didn't suggest there was anything out of the ordinary, and some countries did flat out ignore it because they didn't see any support from the data (Austria for example). For example the fatality rate of SARS was suppose to be 3%, but only people sick enough to get admitted to hospital where tested to see if they have it. Many people could have had it with much milder symptoms. BTW i worked directly on some of the SARS data, and well NDA and stuff i can't say much other than its was pretty poor quality.

Make no mistake, we need an organization like WHO (we get a lot of data from them in fact). And we need to have people on the lookout for pandemics. But we need to base these decisions on data, not emotion. Note data may not be serology tests or DNA test. But old fashion symptom progression, disease state and fatality rates with responses to treatments. ie stuff even a 3rd world hospital would have if the doctors would bloody well write down what they thought, did and measured. Something as simple as temperature rather than a blanket statement of "fever".

Of course a bunch of tests/measurements on the general public "background" would also be useful. But this is expensive and hard to do properly since you can't force it on people and you get selection bias and also a bunch of ethics issues.

about two weeks ago
top

Islamic State "Laptop of Doom" Hints At Plots Including Bubonic Plague

delt0r Re: But is it reaslistic? (369 comments)

While this is true. Even with decades of experiments, they are not going to get anything worse than what is out there already, and most likely more benign, since its no longer evolving under pressure from our immune system (that "evolves" on the order of days and weeks). Sure they could get hold of an Ebola patent and convince them to take a world tour. That is about as effective as they can be. Or blow them up in some very blood spattering way (not sure that would work however).

But a advance lab to create some superbug in some super Crag Venter style is hardly credible. Using evolution to do the dirty work is even less so.

To give you some examples without just a list of reference to papers you probably can't get access too. Common yeast is not the same as lab yeast. Lab yeast does not clump like wild yeast. This is purely unintended selection over the generations with particular lab protocols. Cool eh. We can get some lab strains to replicate quite fast in some media at 37C. Only it turns out that a lot of the "optimal" temperature thing is based again on unintended selection on strains optimized for the most common default lab environments.

We are currently working on tamiflu resistance in evolutionary experiments. Yes we observe resistance in only a few dozen generations. But this already happened in the real world (yea tamiflu more or less never worked properly anyway). We also observe hitchhiking of many things that don't look too good outside the media used. In fact we have to control for the fact that things happen on this media. We let there be a few 100 generations on the media so we don't confuse what is just selection for that media.

And of course all that happened without the presence of a rapidly responding immune system. Now move it into a real host (different media) with a immune system, and you find these lab strains just die out. We see this with lots of different systems by the way.

Bioweapons are even worse than dirty bombs. The threat is not from a terror organization or a stupid scientist. But just old fashion evolution. These make poor bio weapons. But a new pandemic on the scale of Spanish flu would be expensive. However not as devastating as the movies make out. In fact many believe a disaster movie level pandemic is impossible due to the tradeoffs that must be made in the design of the bug/virus.

But don't get me started on these recent H1N1 or bird flu bullshit. I will rant all day.

about two weeks ago
top

Islamic State "Laptop of Doom" Hints At Plots Including Bubonic Plague

delt0r Re: But is it reaslistic? (369 comments)

Err not really. They have taken many decades to really have any impact, and yet they are very poorly selected for patients without treatments. In other words they have these negative mutations with them as well. Also quite a lot of them are because people don't follow treatment programs properly. Tuberculosis is a prime example there.

And why should those environments be even remotely as effective at creating a bioweapon as deliberating creating an environment where the dominant selection processes are for bioweapon potential?

Because evolution just does not work the way you think it does. You can't use evolution to select for a bioweapon, because a bioweapon is not selectively advantageous. Killing your host does not help you perpetuate. Living asymptotically in a host is not a weapon. Getting something that works well in media, has been selected to live well in media and not outside it. We see this all the time. We have math models of it. We have done evolutionary experiments and observed it.

Bioweapons just don't evolve. They must be designed and created. They also don't work well at any rate. Russia and the US didn't agree to stop pursuing them because they thought they could work. They agreed because they had figured out that they just don't work well at all.

about two weeks ago
top

Islamic State "Laptop of Doom" Hints At Plots Including Bubonic Plague

delt0r Re: But is it reaslistic? (369 comments)

It really doesn't work that way, it really is much much harder than that. Also 1000s is with mutagens. You also get bad mutations "hitchhiking" along for the ride, for example ones that reduce virulence. In other words it is only better in the presence of the drug. The other strains would by far out compete it.

Consider how many generations are exposed to these treatments in the real world. Yet we don't see new "bioweapon" strains popping up all the time. And we don't precisely because it really doesn't work that way.

about two weeks ago
top

Islamic State "Laptop of Doom" Hints At Plots Including Bubonic Plague

delt0r Re: But is it reaslistic? (369 comments)

OTOH, it's far easier to cultivate bacteria than viruses. For example, Yersinia pestis, the bacteria that causes bubonic plague can be grown in a modified agar gel [nih.gov] with no need for host cells of any kind. And it's pretty easy to breed in resistance to anti-biotics by exposing the bacteria over many generations to all the anti-biotics in use at doses where a small part of the colony survives.

Working on such data is my day job. It is not even close to as easy as you describe often needing 1000s of generations or more, and you end up with something that is antibiotic resistant *on agar*. Your host is not such a simple media.

about two weeks ago
top

If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

delt0r Re:Big fusion reactor unnecessary for boosting (305 comments)

Replying to this and undoing mods. But man this rubbish has got to stop. A fansworth fusor can at most fuse 10^9 atoms per second. 1 gram of T is .5x10^23. You would need to run it for 15000 years!

about a month ago
top

Fukushima's Biological Legacy

delt0r Re:Bio-accumulation (116 comments)

You mite want to read the papers. The Summary is misleading to a straight out lie.

about a month ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

delt0r Re:A little behind the times (315 comments)

Really look at the data. No the control that should show no thrust at all did (the cavity that should produce no thrust). The force amounts were hardly above the force meters minimum, so where you do expect fairly inaccurate results. Last but not least, it wasn't even done in a vacuum. Forces that small are just not credible with air. Its a 101 of tiny force measurement.

Extraordinary evidence demands a better standard than... "you can't dismiss the results, but it may be X Y or Z". The fact that such things (air effects etc) were not taken into account is just plain shoddy experimental work with that level of force. Its up there with youtube videos of free energy machines. Either do your experiment properly or don't make claims that your experiment didn't even test.

about a month ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

delt0r Re:A little behind the times (315 comments)

Many is vague: let's put a real number on it and say 6 orders of magnitude, or 25 MW. Pretty good size I'd venture. Multiply that by ~40uN/25W and you've got all of 40 Newtons of force. How often do you really suppose a 25MW microwave resonator is operated in a situation where 9lbs of force would be noticeable? Unless I'm drastically overestimating the size of such a thing friction alone would likely hold it in place. And if not a single 1/8" bolt certainly would.

True, i should have run some numbers. In fact 25MW is not far off what accelerators use.

Photon momentum is easy to calculate. E=mc^2 so the mass per second per watt is m=P/c^2, and its moving at the speed of light so multiply by c and you get momentum per second, or force F=P/c . That is for 1N of force you need 3x10^8 watts. Or for one watt 1/3e8=3.333x10^(-9).

Finally, if we take the NASA measurements as indicative of forces being generated...

Lets be very clear, their data shows no such force. Just systematic error. If you get the same "significant" force from the negative control, then its systematic error and you don't make stupid claims.

We understand EM forces and fields very very well. Quite frankly the original claims don't even past a basic "hinky meter" test. They certainly don't have any proper math/physics to back anything up.

about a month ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

delt0r Re:A little behind the times (315 comments)

Read the results again. They shown no effect outside systematic error. In God we trust, the rest of you show me the data. And the abstract is *not* the data.

about a month ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

delt0r Re:A little behind the times (315 comments)

That was with 25 watts. There are cavities with truly massive powers in them. Many orders of magnitude larger than here. For example superconducting cavities used for linear accelerators. The forces they claim would be large enough to be noticed. Also if the force is less than 3.3 nN per watt, its no better than a pure photon drive. Ie just point your microwave transmitter backwards.

about a month ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

delt0r Re:Another case, perhaps? (315 comments)

Yes. But this drive claims to use EM force. We understand that the best.

about a month ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

delt0r Re:Another case, perhaps? (315 comments)

There is nothing magic about the fact there is nothing in between you and the planet. All forces act over a distance. When i want to push a ship, i must push against something else. Sure that something else does not need to be on the ship to conserve momentum. I could perhaps invent anti gravity and push against a planet that is near. We don't know how to do that, but such a thing would conserve all the laws we generally assume will never be broken.

So short answer, Yes. However no such force has been found or postulated in any realistic fashion.

about a month ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

delt0r Re:A little behind the times (315 comments)

If you want to test every claim by people that don't appear to be charlatans, you will spend entire lifetimes just showing bunk is bunk (try anitgravity, free energy BS on youtube). Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

about a month ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

delt0r Re:A little behind the times (315 comments)

There is another problem with the emDrive. Given the shape of microwave cavities used in communications and powers involved, we would have seen the effect long before now.

about a month ago
top

Why the "NASA Tested Space Drive" Is Bad Science

delt0r Re:Another case, perhaps? (315 comments)

Are you falling toward earth or is earth falling up to you? In reality its both. That is why momentum is conserved. In fact conservation of momentum follows from the fact that you can only have forces * between* things and that they are opposite, ie pull together, push etc. Things here can also mean photons.

about a month ago

Submissions

top

delt0r delt0r writes  |  more than 7 years ago

delt0r writes "The new exemptions include Cell phone reuse [www.businessweek.com], backups for Archivists, and removal of malware [www.freedom-to-tinker.com]. But does not go far enough with regard to personal fair use. It is however a step in the right direction. Here [www.copyright.gov] is copyright office page on the changes."

Journals

delt0r has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>