http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/teens-plan-to-clear-plastic-garbage-nearly-ready/ Any serious critical insight, please?
Microdia crams 512GB into a microSD card, out in July Microdia crams 512GB into a microSD card, out in July
Is Death An Illusion? Evidence Suggests Death Isn’t the End Life is an adventure that transcends our ordinary linear way of thinking. Post published by Robert Lanza M.D. on Nov 19, 2011 in Biocentrism After the death of his old friend, Albert Einstein said "Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us ... know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." New evidence continues to suggest that Einstein was right, death is an illusion. Our classical way of thinking is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence. But a long list of experiments shows just the opposite. We think life is just the activity of carbon and an admixture of molecules: we live awhile and then rot into the ground. We believe in death because we've been taught we die. Also, of course, because we associate ourselves with our body and we know bodies die. End of story. But biocentrism, a new theory of everything, tells us death may not be the terminal event we think. Amazingly, if you add life and consciousness to the equation, you can explain some of the biggest puzzles of science. For instance, it becomes clear why space and time—and even the properties of matter itself—depend on the observer. It also becomes clear why the laws, forces, and constants of the universe appear to be exquisitely fine-tuned for the existence of life. Until we recognize the universe in our heads, attempts to understand reality will remain a road to nowhere. Consider the weather ‘outside': You see a blue sky, but the cells in your brain could be changed so the sky looks green or red. In fact, with a little genetic engineering we could probably make everything that is red vibrate or make a noise, or even make you want to have sex, as it does with some birds. You think its bright out, but your brain circuits could be changed so it looks dark out. You think it feels hot and humid, but to a tropical frog it would feel cold and dry. This logic applies to virtually everything. Bottom line: What you see could not be present without your consciousness. In truth, you can't see anything through the bone that surrounds your brain. Your eyes are not portals to the world. Everything you see and experience right now‚ even your body, is a whirl of information occurring in your mind. According to biocentrism, space and time aren't the hard, cold objects we think. Wave your hand through the air—if you take everything away, what's left? Nothing. The same thing applies for time. Space and time are simply the tools for putting everything together. Consider the famous two-slit experiment. When scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other. But if you don't watch, it acts like a wave and can go through both slits at the same time. So how can a particle change its behavior depending on whether you watch it or not? The answer is simple, reality is a process that involves your consciousness. Or consider Heisenberg's famous uncertainty principle. If there is really a world out there with particles just bouncing around, then we should be able to measure all their properties. But you can't. For instance, a particle's exact location and momentum can't be known at the same time. So why should it matter to a particle what you decide to measure? And how can pairs of entangled particles be instantaneously connected on opposite sides of the galaxy as if space and time don't exist? Again, the answer is simple: because they're not just ‘out there'—space and time are simply tools of our mind. Death doesn't exist in a timeless, spaceless world. Immortality doesn't mean a perpetual existence in time, but resides outside of time altogether. Our linear way of thinking about time is also inconsistent with another series of recent experiments. In 2002, scientists showed that particles of light "photons" knew, in advance,what their distant twins would do in the future. They tested the communication between pairs of photons. They let one photon finish its journey—it had to decide whether to be either a wave or a particle. Researchers stretched the distance the other photon took to reach its own detector. However, they could add a scrambler to prevent it from collapsing into a particle. Somehow, the first particle knew what the researcher was going to do before it happened, and across distances instantaneously as if there were no space or time between them. They decide not to become particles before their twin even encounters the scrambler. It doesn't matter how we set up the experiment. Our mind and its knowledge is the only thing that determines how they behave. Experiments consistently confirm these observer-dependent effects. Bizarre? Consider another experiment that was recently published in the prestigious scientific journal Science (Jacques et al, 315, 966, 2007). Scientists in France shot photons into an apparatus, and showed that what they did could retroactively change something that had already happened in the past. As the photons passed a fork in the apparatus, they had to decide whether to behave like particles or waves when they hit a beam splitter. Later on - well after the photons passed the fork - the experimenter could randomly switch a second beam splitter on and off. It turns out that what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle actually did at the fork in the past. At that moment, the experimenter chose his past. Of course, we live in the same world. But critics claim this behavior is limited to the microscopic world. But this 'two-world' view (that is, one set of physical laws for small objects, and another for the rest of the universe including us) has no basis in reason and is being challenged in laboratories around the world. A couple years ago, researchers published a paper in Nature (Jost et al, 459, 683, 2009) showing that quantum behavior extends into the everyday realm. Pairs of vibrating ions were coaxed to entangle so their physical properties remained bound together when separated by large distances ("spooky action at a distance," as Einstein put it). Other experiments with huge molecules called ‘Buckyballs' also show that quantum reality extends beyond the microscopic world. And in 2005, KHC03 crystals exhibited entanglement ridges one-half inch high, quantum behavior nudging into the ordinary world of human-scale objects. We generally reject the multiple universes of Star Trek as fiction, but it turns out there is more than a morsel of scientific truth to this popular genre. One well-known aspect of quantum physics is that observations can't be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability. One mainstream explanation, the "many-worlds" interpretation, states that each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe (the 'multiverse'). There are an infinite number of universes and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe. Death does not exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them. Life is an adventure that transcends our ordinary linear way of thinking. When we die, we do so not in the random billiard-ball-matrix but in the inescapable-life-matrix. Life has a non-linear dimensionality; it's like a perennial flower that returns to bloom in the multiverse. "The influences of the senses," said Ralph Waldo Emerson "has in most men overpowered the mind to the degree that the walls of space and time have come to look solid, real and insurmountable; and to speak with levity of these limits in the world is the sign of insanity." You can learn more about biocentrism at www.RobertLanzaBiocentrism.com SOURCE
How Microsoft Can Spy On You And How To Stop It This Article will explain how they spy on you and how you can stop Microsoft from getting your IP Address without your permission. How Microsoft Can Spy On You? The answer is simple, via their NCSI ( Network Connectivity Status Indicator ). Why should we care of it? Well... each time we start our Windows Computer an Internet connection test is run automatically to test the Internet availability. So each time we start it, our PC makes a connectivity request to a text file into the NCSI Server of Microsoft ( 131.107.255.255 & dns.msftncsi.com ). The Text file should be located here: http://www.msftncsi.com/ncsi.txt Where's the fun part? Microsoft admitted that they DO NOT NOTIFY the user Before attempting to collect informations, infact it is automatically done if you have the Internet!. ...In short... They store, in a NO-ENCRYPTED way, your logs into their WebServer, each time you connect. The logs contain the time of each access and the IP address recorded for that access. Wanna See in Deep?? Look Below Here! "User notification: [ NCSI does not notify the user before attempting to collect information. ] ... " "Encryption and storage: [ NCSI does not use encryption ] ... [ IIS logs are stored on the server at www.msftncsi.com. These logs contain the time of each access and the IP address recorded for that access. ] ... " What did they say about it? They said that "These IP addresses are not used to identify users, and in many cases, they are the address of a network address translation (NAT) computer or proxy server, not a specific client behind that NAT computer or proxy server." Alright... So Someone may say that it is a service to help native users see a yellow icon if there is a limited connectivity. But... ask to yourself, why should Microsoft needs to get all these Personal Informations from Us (stored in that way)?. Read More Here --> https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc766017(v=WS.10).aspx Isn't a "Legal" Spy System? ... well , if you feel ashamed from all of this, we will teach you How to Block all that stuff!. So, if you Wanna Block the Microsoft "Auto IP-Listening" Service? Act as below: 1) Open REGEDIT and press Enter 2) Go on HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE 4) Click on SYSTEM 5) Click on CurrentControlSet 6) Click on Services 7) Click on NLaSvc 8) Click on Parameters 9) Click on Internet 10) On the right side look for "EnableActiveProibing" and set his Value to "0" Done?! No, There's another way on how they can Track us, by using our Local Computer Policy Editor. Wanna be more secure? You'll have to deactivate the "Windows Network Connectivity Status Indicator active tests". How can you do it? Follow these steps: 1) Search for gpedit.msc and click on it, the Local Computer Policy Editor will appear 2) Go here: Local Computer Policy > Computer Configuration > Administrative Templates > System > Internet Communication Management > Internet Communication Settings 3) Look for "Windows Network Connectivity Status Indicator active tests" and turn it OFF. **Still Worried?!** You can Manually Block the domains and the referred IPs directly from the HOSTS File!... 1) Navigate here: c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts 2) Open the file with NOTEPAD or another Text Editor: 3) Paste these following lines at the end of the File: 127.0.0.1 msftncsi.com 127.0.0.1 131.107.255.255 127.0.0.1 dns.msftncsi.com 4) What's next? Of Course you must Save it!. Congratulations! You have now stopped to send all your Connection Details to Microsoft!. SOURCE
Study claims 1 in 4 cancer research papers contains faked data A closer look at the results suggests things are bad, but not quite that bad... more
CERN experiment spots two different five-quark particles First evidence of "pentaquark-charmonium states." Yes, seriously. by John Timmer In particle physics' youth, researchers started discovering a dizzying variety of ever heavier, unstable particles. Quarks brought some order to this chaos. The zoo of particles, along with the familiar proton and neutron, were built from combinations of the six quarks or their antiparticles. The system neatly explained the spin and charge of these particles and helped make sense of particles discovered as accelerators reached even higher energies. All of the particles we knew of were built using either two or three quarks. But there was nothing in our theories that prevented larger assemblages having even more quarks. Discovery, however, lagged well behind the initial proposal, which came in the 1970s. A buzz of excitement about a five-quark particle came and subsided after other accelerator teams couldn't reproduce the result. The experiment is called LHCb, and it focuses on a limited number of the total collisions produced by the LHC: those that generate a bottom (or beauty) quark—hence the "b" in its name. The physics of these particles can potentially tell us about the limitations of the Standard Model or the asymmetry between matter and antimatter in the Universe. So LHCb is specialized to examine the behavior of particles containing bottom quarks.Just two years ago, however, two different teams announced evidence for a tetraquark particle, which picked up the name Zc(3900). And now, an experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has come up with evidence of a five-quark behemoth. Quarks never travel alone for long, so they're usually produced as part of a larger particle, containing one or two additional quarks. In this particular experiment, the LHCb team was looking at Λ0bbaryons, which contain an up quark, a down quark, and a bottom quark. These decay by a pathway that goes through a pair of unstable particles (J/ψ and K−). The authors were measuring this decay in part because it can tell us something about the half-life of the parent Λ0b particle. The problem was that these decays showed an unusual pattern. Rather than showing a smooth curve as energy increased, there was a jagged peak in it. This suggested that decay through certain intermediate particles was favored. There was just one problem: no particles could explain why the peaks were at the locations they were seen. The authors got a computer to model what would happen if the decay went through an intermediate particle they called Pc+. This particle contains two up and one down quarks, along with a charm and anticharm—pentaquark-charmonium, which can exist in a number of possible energy states. Remarkably, it fit when there were two different five-quark particles: one with a mass of 4449 Mega-electronVolts (nearly five times the mass of a proton) and another at 4380MeV. The significance of the match was over nine sigma; only five sigma are required for physicists to announce discovery. There are some assumptions here that will need to be checked. The model used to identify the particles had to be simplified down to reduce the number of free parameters, or the math would have been outrageous. This simplification involved ignoring even more exotic possibilities, so it is probably reasonable, but you can expect theoreticians to look it over carefully. And it's somewhat surprising that a single analysis would turn up two members of a class of particles that had eluded detection previously. Still the data suggests that something strange must be happening in these decays. (Incidentally, all the data is from the earlier runs of the LHC, which ended a couple of years ago. Lots of different decays go on in these collisions, and they typically get prioritized based on things like the ease of the analysis and the expectation of where interesting physics will be. But even things that aren't immediate priorities do eventually get looked at.) Enlarge / The new particle may be a composite of two familiar ones (left) or the first of a class of five-quark particles. CERN Assuming the results hold up, the particle raises the same question that came up in response to the tetraquark: how is this put together? There are two options, as shown at top. One is that it's put together like known particles, with multiple quarks interacting through gluons. The alternative is that it's a hybrid composed of two particles we already know about. But this would have to be held together by a force we're not familiar with. Either way, there's some distinctive physics waiting for a more detailed analysis. The arXiv. Abstract number: 1507.03414 (About the arXiv). Submitted to Physical Review Letters. Source
Intel confirms tick-tock shattering Kaby Lake processor as Moore’s Law falters Intel has confirmed today that it will build a third generation of processors on its 14nm process, and that the switch to 10nm manufacturing has been delayed until the second half of 2017, showing the challenges that Moore's Law is under, and bringing an end to the company's "tick-tock" strategy. Since 2007, Intel has been operating on a staggered release schedule that alternates manufacturing process shrinks—"ticks"—with major microarchitectural improvements—"tocks". For example, the current generation Broadwell processors are a "tick," being the first processors built on the 14nm process. Later this year Intel will release the first Skylake processors; these will continue to be built on 14nm, but will contain a range of architectural improvements, and as such are a "tock." The original plan was for Skylake to be succeeded by Cannonlake. This was to be the next tick; the processor architecture would be minimally changed, but the manufacturing process would switch to 10nm. In a call to shareholders after announcing its financial results today, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich confirmed that this plan has been derailed. The migration to 14nm was more challenging than anticipated, and there were issues too with the previous migration to 22nm. Transitioning to 10nm isn't expected to be any better, so Intel is extending the timelines. Cannonlake is being pushed back, from 2016 to the second half of 2017, and in the interim, a third "lake" generation processor will be released in 2016. Like Skylake, this processor will continue to use the 14nm process. News of this processor appeared to leak last month along with its full name: Kaby Lake. Little concrete is known about Kaby Lake, but it's likely to be available in a range of lines from a 4.5W laptop part up to 80W dual-socket server and workstation parts. Krzanich indicated that this may not be the end of tick tock forever, and that a more regular two year-per-process timeframe was still the long-term desire, but Intel's difficulties and changed plans show the continuing challenges with keeping pace with Moore's Law: the rule of thumb coined by Intel's Gordon Moore that transistor density will double every 18-24 months. Future processes require more complex manufacturing and more exotic technology—IBM recently demoed a 7nm chip, though the commercial viability of this manufacturing process is less than clear—so these delays may become a common feature of the future. Source
3 Articles Cancer tumours 'reprogrammed' back into healthy tissue This is what the world economy actually looks like Scientists turn to 'bee-tags' to help halt the honey bee apocalypse
I Asked 12 Scientists: What Is The One Fact Humanity Needs To Know? 1. Dr Ceri Brenner, physicist working with high-powered lasers: “Energy is always conserved, never created or destroyed. Life and the processes that surround us in the world and the universe are governed by the constant flow of energy transforming from one state to another, never disappearing but emerging in a different form. “Our state of being, of breathing, of consuming, of reproducing is a cycle of energy transfer from chemical to heat to chemical to mass, etc. Our state of experiencing the world through sight, sound, touch, communication is the conversion of electrical energy to heat or light. Inside our sun is a conversion of mass energy into heat and movement energy, keeping all of us alive. “All scientific experiments start with the same question: What happens when I add a bit of energy or change the energy balance, where does the energy then go? What biological, chemical, or physical processes does that energy transfer trigger? “Philosophically, this is also a very nice sentiment when thinking of those who have died. Their energy, stored up in their mass, will never be destroyed; it will be conserved and transformed into something else or will simply remain constant.” 2. Dr Buddhini Samarasinghe, molecular biologist: “The elegant double-helix structure of the DNA molecule, found inside nearly every living cell, is the most important piece of scientific information that humanity would need to know. Made up of just four letters, A, T, C, and G, representing four different chemicals, this is the very Code of Life. These four letters, and the order in which they are arranged, can tell us about our past, present, and future. “The DNA code helps us learn where we came from and who our ancestors were. It can help us understand the diseases that ail us, and how to fight them. The structure of DNA allows us to comprehend life on our planet, to learn where we fit within the natural order, and how we can best participate in the world we share.” 3. Dr Lewis Dartnell, astrobiologist and author of The Knowledge: How to Rebuild our World from Scratch: “While Feynman’s sentence is all good and true, it isn’t particularly useful in an immediate pragmatic sense. I wrote a book recently which was intended as a guidebook for rebooting civilisation after an apocalypse, looking at the key technologies and central scientific principles that underpin our lives – the behind-the-scenes fundamentals that we all just take for granted today – and what enabled society to progress through the centuries of history. I argue how the greatest invention of history is the scientific method itself – the knowledge-generation machinery that we have been using for over 350 years now to come to understand how the world works. So if you could preserve only one single sentence, I would push for: ‘The natural world is not governed by whimsical gods, but is essentially mechanical and can therefore be understood and then predicted by people, using careful observation, experimentation, and measurement, and importantly by testing your explanations to try to refute them.’ It’s this reiterative process of refinement that sets science apart from any other system for explaining how the world works. “There are other tips that could help with immediate survival. Diarrhoeal disease kills millions of people every year – all preventable by simple means. One method recommended by the World Health Organisation in developing nations for low-tech treatment of drinking water is called SODIS, or solar disinfection. All you need to do is pour your suspect water into a plastic bottle and leave it in the sun. Ultraviolet rays in sunlight pass straight through and kill any germs. So you can come back to your bottle a day or two later and know that the water you put to your lips isn’t going to kill you.” 4. Dr Susannah Fleming, engineer: “I would think about knowledge that is immediately applicable by a civilisation with little or no science or technology, to produce a wide benefit. So I would go for infection prevention and control: ‘Illness is often caused by tiny lifeforms, invisible to the naked eye, which can be transmitted by breath, touch, and body fluids; transmission can be minimised by keeping waste out of water supplies, and by cleaning people and surfaces who have been in contact with a sick person or creature.’ “Not ideal, but it would at least help avoid the ‘miasma’ theory that probably contributed to human ill health for many centuries.” 5. Dr Duncan Casey, chemist/biophysicist/engineer: “I’d have to go with ‘Spin a magnet inside a loop of copper and the form of energy you create can provide you with light, heat, food and clean water.’ Discovering electricity was a huge step in our development – the ability to provide consistent power in a useful form meant that suddenly we could keep houses at a controlled temperature year-round, keep food fresh for longer, and communicate with each other over long distances, to name but a few of the more basic applications. It drives our farms, our factories, and our trains, it dominates the way we share information and has largely replaced our physical currencies. “However, electricity also gave us the impetus to start unpicking the fabric of nature at a fundamental level, but also gave us the tools to do it and to analyse the findings we generate. It’s so integral to the way we live now that it still astonishes me that we only began to experiment with it in a useful form 200 years ago. Look at how far and how fast we’ve come since then: If I could provide a surviving society with one transformative, step-change discovery, it would be how to generate electricity.” 6. Ying Lia Li, PhD student in optomechanics: “The simple act of sitting on the beach and watching the ocean tide can be enough to come up with a mathematical description that describes nearly all motion around us: from the orbits of planets in space to the vibrations of the sand between your toes (and even the billions and billions of atoms inside a grain of that sand). This model is called the harmonic oscillator model, where the motion of an object goes back and forth or up and down in a pattern known as a sinusoidal wave. “Normally this is intuitive, and we see a lot of harmonic motion in real life: the pendulum inside a grandfather clock, the motion of a diving board, or the distinct sound of resonance when you turn up the bass in your car radio. However, many complex behaviours can also be described in a similar way, such as electronic circuits, the motion of individual atoms and molecules, and even quantum field theory. In fact, understanding the quantum harmonic oscillator model has been crucial for scientists to find ways to manipulate the motion of atoms, allowing research labs all over the world to regularly and easily create the coldest atoms in the universe.” 7. Dr Liam Gaffney, nuclear physicist: “Being a nuclear physicist, it may not be unexpected that my answer is similar to Feynman’s. The atomic hypothesis is fundamental to our very existence, how we were born in the stars and how we are all made of the same stuff. Just three little particles – the proton, neutron, and electron – constitute everything that we see around us. This is profound knowledge that we only discovered in the 20th century. “If I had to put it somewhat less concisely than the original, I would say that ‘We and everything that we see around us are made of the same three unimaginably tiny particles, born out of violently exploding stars hundreds of millions of years ago.’ “With knowledge like this, and the understanding that we’re all just extremely fortunate lumps of the same matter, one might hope for a relatively peaceful post-scientific world. More likely though, humankind’s struggle to understand its own consciousness will still be played out in bloody battle. However, with no scientific knowledge, maybe we’ll be back to sticks and stones and not guns and bombs. “ 8. Alom Shaha, physics teacher: “I’d really love to be able to answer this question by conveying some idea of the ‘scientific method’ in a few words. As a science teacher, I teach my students about a particular set of knowledge and ideas – Newtonian mechanics, the theory of evolution by natural selection, the atomic theory of matter and so on – which have tremendous explanatory and predictive power. “Science does not come naturally to humans; ‘scientific’ models are often counter-intuitive and can be far removed from ‘common sense’ explanations of how the world works. It’s remarkable to me that humans have worked out ways of modelling nature which allow us to do everything from eradicating deadly diseases to knowing how to land a probe on a comet that’s flying through space at thousands of metres per second. So, if there was some kind of cataclysm which destroyed all existing scientific knowledge, the important thing to preserve is not any particular facts or theories, but the requirements for what constitutes a ‘scientific’ theory, perhaps something like: “A scientific theory must put forward a comprehensive explanation for something we observe in nature, provide strong evidence for that explanation, and provide the means with which to make predictions about the aspect of the world it explains, which we can then test by observation.” 9. Dr Samuel Godfrey, biochemist: “We know so many wonderful things thanks to science that I just don’t think a single piece of information could cut it. Instead I would try and pass on the idea of the scientific method. I would tell the future creatures that ‘There is nothing more important than being a curious sceptic. Demand evidence for everything and expect others to demand it of you. Tell the world what you’ve learned, no matter how small, and if it stands up to scrutiny, then you’re on the right track. Get this right and you will change the world.’ “If this new society thrives and embraces this way of thinking (and doesn’t get side-tracked by fairies and things), then in just a few hundred years they will know everything we could have told them anyway.” 10. Dr Dean Burnett, psychologist: “If you’re going to rebuild society, you need people to help you. So, rather than the more fundamental sciences or processes of nature that would help rebuild things, I’d say the most important thing to know about is people themselves. Basically, the human brain isn’t 100% rational, so if you want to achieve large groups of people working together, you need to know this and not assume everyone will pitch in because it’s the logical thing to do. Cognitive biases, group mentality, social hierarchies, differing motivations and experiences, these and more all mean that people can have wildly differing conclusions about what the ‘correct’ course of action is. “You can’t just present the course of action that has the most evidence to support it and expect everyone to fall in line. See the antivaccination movement, climate change denial, intelligent design proponents, and more, for modern examples of this. Bottom line: People aren’t logical or rational by default, and it’s vitally important to remember this when trying to impart knowledge and guidance. Having some useful knowledge like atomic theory or the nature of gravity isn’t going to be much use if enough people don’t want to believe it.” 11. Dr Sujata Kundu, materials chemist: “As a materials chemist, I see everything in the world as an arrangement of atoms. These atoms are like the Lego bricks of our universe, except that there is also a game-playing element to it. There are rules that cannot be broken. Knowing the rules of the game and how the Lego bricks interact with themselves and others helps us to make sense of everything – why glass is transparent, why ceramic cracks, why ice is less dense than liquid water. “But Einstein once said that ‘imagination is more important than knowledge’ and I agree. We know what we know, but our imagination takes us to places beyond that which we have already established, and on to new discoveries, theories, and explanations. “If all scientific knowledge were destroyed, the next generation of creatures would find a way. They always do. We always do. Evolution, survival of the fittest, adapting to live, it’s still all science, but by trial and error. Experimentation. Imagination. Maybe the next generation of creatures don’t need information. Maybe all they need is a little encouragement.” 12. Dr Greig Cowan, particle physicist: “It’s difficult to beat Feynman! However, something that immediately comes to my mind is a small equation that every physics/mathematics student should know that encapsulates a lot of deep concepts (arithmetic, pi, complex numbers, logarithms, zero, one). It’s called Euler’s identity, and it goes like this: eiπ+1=0.” SOURCE
A magnetic 'wormhole' that connects two regions of space has been created A magnetic 'wormhole' that connects two regions of space has been created