I want to learn intool package........pls tell me which institute is best in india.
As Rolta Automation is just cheating with candidates....they dont know nothing about automation.........just grab the money (45000INR)
if any one is undergone this course..... pls share your knowledge.
Where can I find a 120V AC 60A DPDT electromechanical switch? Intermatic doesn't make one, and I can't find another manufacturer. If an electromechanical switch is truly not available, then I will need to solve the problem with an electric control and a DPDT relay. I couldn't find on the Internet
Pls tell me how to Edit a scan file.........i have a scan document and i have adobe professional 7 version.............what are the steps to edit the contents.
i will gratefull if someone help me
New York may be famous for its 11,875-pound, 12-foot diameter Waterford crystal ball that drops over Times Square every New Year’s Eve, but it’s no longer the only for revelers wishing to count down the minutes to the new year. For the second consecutive year, Panama City, Florida will celebrate New Year’s Eve by dropping an 800-pound glowing beach ball at Pier Park.
Watch the video below of last year’s event, which attracted more than 12,000 attendees:
Festivities, all of which are free and open to the public, begin at 5:30 p.m. with family entertainment that will include bounce houses, party favors, street performers, stilt walkers and face painters, and culminates at 8:30 p.m. with fireworks and a drop of 7,000 inflatable beach balls.
Streets will be closed for the countdown celebration from 9:00 p.m. – 1:00 a.m., and the 120-foot descent of the beach ball will begin just before midnight, followed by a midnight fireworks display over the Gulf of Mexico. Southwest Airlines is sponsoring this year’s event in celebration of the May opening of Panama City’s new Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport and their entry into the market. In addition to the lineup of events, Southwest has donated six pairs of round trip airfare tickets as prize giveaway.
Panama City Beach is also offering great packages on accommodations, with rates at select properties start at $99 per night for gulf-front accommodations when reservations are booked online using promo code: NYE. It’s a novel, family-friendly event, and best of all, there’s no freezing temperatures to endure.
Video courtesy of Panama City Beach
Article by Barbara Weibel at Hole In The Donut Travels
We live along a dead end rural road with 5 other houses and a fish farm. The fish farm has a large generator to run pumps during a power failure. In an extended emergency could you disconnect from the main line and back feed power to the 5 houses from the fish farm generator? Would you simply run
Google has an ad banner in their search home page for their Chrome browser. Can it eventually change the course of the browser wars? And what can happen if it does?
Google's search home page has stayed clean forever, with no clutter or advertising banners of any kind. When Chrome came out, they broke their self-imposed rule to promote their browser whenever an Internet Explorer user arrived to their page. Using their most powerful nuke—the most popular home page in the world—Google is looking to change the course of the Browser War. Now that Chrome is available for Mac, the banner has started to appear in Safari too. According to the latest statistics, their strategy is working well, growing to a 4.4% browser market share in 15 months.
Google knows they need to control the web in every sense, and Chrome is now one of the most important pieces in their strategy to keep their web stronghold. It's clearly the cornerstone of their future plans to take over the incoming new computing world—a world of smart phones and new devices that will eventually replace the computer as we know it. They are hoping the majority of those smart phones would be running Android, and tablets and computers would running ChromeOS. And rendering their web world, there will be Chrome. Not Internet Explorer, Safari/Webkit, or Firefox. Google wants to own the delivery medium, power the hardware, deploy the browser, and then control the delivery of the content. They want the whole enchilada.
That's why this is happening. Chrome will now get exposed to the hundreds of millions of people who visit Google's home page every day. Many will look at the banner and, trusting the Google brand, they will download and install it. My feeling is that many will click that big thing on the top right corner, but even if it's a small percentage of visitors, the potential for change is enormous. We will see soon how effective this campaign could be, but there's one fact that can't be denied now: This is a competitive advantage that browsers like Firefox or Opera don't have. If it ends being powerful change force, Google could eventually face an anti-trust investigation like the one Microsoft faced when they used their domination of desktop operating systems to win the Browser War 1.0 against Netscape. After all, the web is the new OS and Google owns the web.
Would Mozilla whine about this now, like they did about Microsoft? Would the Department of Justice keep an eye on this? Would the European Commission order Google to place banner's for Firefox, Opera, Safari, and, o the irony, Explorer in Google's home page, alongside Chrome's?
It's too early to tell if this is part of a long term aggressive push, but I can't wait for this clusterfuck to happen. It's going to be fun. [Silicon Alley Insider]
GV Mobile is now available for jailbroken iPhone devices for free, but there's something better coming up… GV Mobile 2.0. Here's a first look at the app.
It's pretty simple: Apple's iPhone OS is basically the only major smartphone operating system without an official or unofficial Google Voice client. We used to have GV Mobile and VoiceCentral, but as we all know, those were abruptly removed from the App Store and even Google's official client was turned away. Well, at least Apple didn't Amazon your iPhone and take away the Google Voice applications you already bought/downloaded, right? They might as well have as GV Mobile was rendered useless after a Google Voice-side update, and with no way of updating existing user's applications, anyone who had been a GV Mobile user up until that point in time was out of luck.
GV Mobile is now available for jailbroken iPhone devices for free, but there's something better coming up: GV Mobile 2.0. We're really excited to tell you about it, too. It has been polished and refined — it had an injection of features —and we love using it, even in its non-final and beta form. For starters, dialed calls connect almost instantly, your iPhone contacts and favorites are accessible right within the app, there's voicemail transcription viewing, and even multiple Google Voice account support. Advanced features like call forwarding phones, do not disturb settings as well automatic syncing, and even Growl support are on the to-do list, but for now, we're just happy to have GV Mobile back on our non-jailbroken iPhone. Hopefully Apple reverses course and lets this version through their pearly gates when it is finished, though we wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Super shout out to Sean Kovacs for hooking us up!
BGR features the latest tech news, mobile-related content and of course, exclusive scoops.
When a UK electric rail was disabled by the snow and cold, 100 passengers were left stranded. Until a Tornado came and whisked them home. That is, the steam engine named Tornado, built with 1940s tech. Speed isn't everything. [BBC]
Over the past couple of years, I have been ashamed to note that terrorists, atleast the high profile ones always have engineering degrees. For illustration : The mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, was a mechanical engineer. The mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing, Ramzi Yousef, was an
Score for privacy rights: In a 4-to-3 vote, the Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that police has no right to search your phone without a search warrant, overruling previous lower court decisions on the matter. This is great news.
In the State of Ohio vs Antwaun Smith, the Supreme Court has declared the search of Smith's cellphone—who was arrested at the time on drug charges—to be unconstitutional, breaking the protection against unreasonable search provided by the Fourth Amendment. The court has decided that cellphones are "capable of storing a wealth of digitized information" and, as such, they should be considered private. Therefore, police should obtain a search warrant before "entering" into the phone to look for evidence against a subject.
It's great to see some reasonable, informed logic in this ocean of stupidness and privacy abuse we live in. [Supreme Court of Ohio's PDF ruling via NYT]
Great news: Panasonic not only started mass producing laptop type battery with a record setting rating of 3.1 amp hours this December, but in the next few years, will make these cells with up to 4.0 amps in 2013. Yowzer.
Part of the secret is to use nickel instead of carbon for the positive terminal in each cell. The previous record at Panasonic for type cells were 2.9 amp hours, and a quick search shows that most are in the 2.2 amp range.
Battery tech still remains one of the slowest developing sectors in technology, which is why Obama put billions of dollars in grant money towards its research. And why this is great news for all. [Panasonic]
It's not a scientific test, but is there any other better way to test the strength of five bag brands than using a 10,300-pound elephant? Maybe there is, but it won't be this fun. Surprisingly, one bag resisted:
It took 14 minutes to crack open a $545 Tumi, eight minutes to open a $218 Delsey, one minute to open a legendary $240 Samsonite, and twenty minutes to rip apart a cheap $99 American Tourister. So much for premium pricing. The only un-cracked winner: A $320 Victorinox which, coincidentally, is the one I bought a few months ago. [CBS]
Considering Office 2010's cloud-based plans, it's no surprise that Apple's iWork division is courting developers to build "a scalable rich internet application." Let's face it: That means iWork in the cloud is (almost) definitely coming.
iWork already has a website that allows users to upload documents and comment on them, but no editing. As TechCrunch points out, what's interesting is that Apple is looking for someone to help go from "design to development," meaning there's probably a completely new product in the iWorks (...I'm so sorry about that, but I had to).
The posting also makes it sound like they're relatively early in the process (after all, they're looking for someone to help design, not just develop), but I'm sure Apple has something up their sleeve. This migration to the cloud is their big chance to finally catch up to Microsoft and Google's dominance in the world of office productivity suites. Guess we'll find out what Apple's cooking at some point. [TechCrunch]
Now here's how to ensure your child's Nobel Prize. Babies might not understand the theory of relativity (or words even), but maybe this science quilt will have the little tot thinking early enough to get a jump-start on the competition.
I love the way that images representing atomic physics are laid on top fabric featuring dinosaurs riding in a wagon. It's what I imagine a quilt made by They Might Be Giants would look like.
Check out the link for the rest of the images. And good luck, kid. We're all expecting you to cure cancer now. No pressure. [Reddit]
Russell Blackford is a guest blogger for Sentient Developments.
Introduction
The current (December 2009) issue of The Journal of Medical Ethics contains my paper: "Moral pluralism versus the total view: why Singer is wrong about radical life extension." There, I critique an early 1990s paper by Peter Singer, which argues that we should not proceed to develop a hypothetical life-extension drug, based on a scenario where developing the drug would fail to achieve the greatest sum of universal happiness over time. I respond that this is the wrong test. If we ask, more simply, which policy would be more benevolent, we reach a different conclusion from Singer's: even given his questionable scenario, development of the drug should go ahead. A more pluralistic account of the nature of morality than used by Singer reaches a benevolent recommendation on life-extension technology.
My paper is intended not merely to offer a better solution to the conundrums raised in Singer's original piece, but also to suggest a methodology of much wider value in applied moral philosophy.
The scenario
Singer's argument employs an imaginary scenario in which life extension would not increase, and would actually reduce, the universal sum of happiness or welfare (henceforth, I will refer simply to "happiness") over time. Singer describes a scenario in which an anti-ageing, or life-extension, pill would more-or-less double human lifespans, but the level of happiness enjoyed in the second half of a typical individual's life would be lowered to some (relatively small) extent. He also stipulates that it would be necessary to ensure that fewer people came into existence over time if the life-extending pill were developed and used. Given this scenario, he thinks, we should not go ahead with developmental work on the hypothetical life-extension pill.
More specifically, Singer imagines a scenario in which those who take the drug experience no effect during their early decades of life. However, when they reach middle age, the drug retards further ageing so dramatically as to extend an average life span from about 75 years to about 150 years. During her additional years of life, an individual's health will not be restored to youthful levels, but it will be good enough for a very worthwhile quality of life (similar to the health of people in their sixties or seventies today). An individual may find that life has lost some of its experienced "freshness", and the combination of this (should it happen) with somewhat reduced health will make her additional years less happy than her first 70 or 80 years of life - but not greatly so.
Mark Walker has questioned this scenario elsewhere, suggesting that it is unrealistic to assume that the first 70 or 80 years would typically be happier than the second for those with what he calls "superlongevity". My own approach is more fundamental, as I conclude that Singer gives the wrong recommendation even if we accept all of his stipulated facts.
A further stipulation made by Singer is that resource limitations will require population controls, whether or not the drug becomes generally available, but they will need to be more severe if the pill is developed. Fortunately, Singer tells us, the pill will allow for an increase in average child-bearing age and a lower fertility rate. Nothing in his analysis depends on the exact ingredients of a population policy; rather, his essential point is that it will be necessary to devise an appropriate policy to ensure that only half as many people are born if the life-extension drug is available. I.e., he has in mind a scenario in which the total number of people who will be born and live out their lives over a large number of years will be half what it would have been without the drug. (The fairly simple calculations involved are discussed in my article; suffice to say that Singer is more or less right here, if we adopt all his basic assumptions.)
It is easy to demonstrate that, if we adopt all these assumptions - which Singer evidently regards as constituting a plausible scenario - the total sum of happiness, over a set period of time, is greater in a society without the life-extension pill than a society with the life extension pill. Moreover, the average society-wide happiness at any given moment is higher in the society without the life-extension pill. On the other hand, typical individuals of the future will have better lives in the society with the life-extension pill than in the society without it. This may seem paradoxical, but it is actually quite easy to demonstrate that it is true so long as we make some plausible assumptions. In that case, should we go ahead with developing the drug or not?
Recommendations: Singer's ... and mine
Singer argues that should not develop the drug; I disagree. But here the argument gets complex, and I cannot, in a relatively brief blog post, do justice to the complex issues that I needed a 7000-word article to tease out properly. I agree with Singer that we should take into account the interests of future generations, not just the interests of people who are alive now, but what follows from this?
It appears that Singer wants to maximise what we could call total future happiness-years (I hope the meaning of this is transparent: in any event, it involves multiplying the number of future people by the average number of years they live, and then by their average level of happiness across an entire life). He wants to do this at all costs, even if the people who come into existence have worse lives than the smaller number of longer-lived of people who would have come into existence under a different policy. I find that very implausible. Although Singer offers thought experiments to support his approach to the question, I find them unconvincing (my article explains why in some detail).
We should, I suggest, adopt the more benevolent policy, and we should not think of benevolence as a matter of maximising total happiness-years. In a situation such as the one that concerns us, the choice of the pro-pill and anti-pill versions of Singer's life-extension scenario, we should not try to maximise the overall number of happiness-years. We should try to produce the most fortunate lives.
Moral theories
It may be that utilitarians, such as Peter Singer, are inevitably pushed toward "total-view" thinking - which attempts to maximise the total amount of happiness in the universe - rather than toward a view that we should ensure the best possible lives for those people who will come to exist in the future. As a result utilitarians can, again paradoxically given the sympathies that underly their moral theory, can make policy recommendations that are not the most benevolent available.
Unfortunately, all utilitarian theories developed to date contain paradoxes or involve counterintuitive implications. If, however, we take a more pluralistic approach to the sources of our morality, such difficulties vanish. I expect that a considerable diversity of values underpins our actual moral thinking. We care, for example, about the reduction of suffering, about the lives of others going well, and about people being able to live with a certain spontaneity. We value wilderness, art and culture, the quest for knowledge, the existence of complex, creative cultures … and many other things. To at least some extent, we value all these for themselves, not solely because of their further utilitarian effects.
We do not value the largest possible sum of happiness over time ... which can, in principle, be gained by multiplying the number of sentient beings (so long as they have lives that are at least worth living). What we value, rather, is that whatever actual lives come into being should go well. Other things being equal, we value the outcomes that would be chosen, among those possible, by a benevolent decision-maker, not by a decision-maker committed to total-view utilitarianism. As shwon by the way Singer has set up his life-extension scenario, these two kinds of outcomes can diverge.
Conclusion
It is clear to me that I should vote to go ahead and develop the life-extension pill - and so, after reflection, should you, and so should Singer. No plausible values are violated by this action; quite the opposite. Far from feeling guilt or regret at having adversely affected another person, or having destroyed or damaged anything precious, an individual who votes to develop the life-extension pill has every reason to feel virtuous. She will have helped to create a world in which lives go better than (more and different) lives would otherwise have.
I am, however, conscious that some readers will find this very truncated version of the argument unconvincing. That may, of course, be because I am wrong! However, it may also be because the issues become quite complicated, and that I really do need the considerably greater length of the full article in The Journal of Medical Ethics to explain them properly. If you have library access, I suggest you look up the original article and the other works cited there.
Otherwise, I can only promise that I will return to similar issues in future writings, perhaps here, but certainly in my own blog over at Metamagician and the Hellfire Club.
This photo shows the power of image post-processing. It also shows that we are a tiny speck of nothingness in the middle of a fiery cosmic fluff. Enjoy the famous M51 galaxy, like you have never seen it before.
Click on the image to see it in high definition.
Scientists have digitally reprocessed data from the Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys to get this new view of the NGC 5194—the 51st object in Charles Messier's catalog—which is considered "the original spiral nebula." According to NASA, "the processing has further sharpened details and enhanced color and contrast in otherwise faint areas, bringing out dust lanes and extended streams that cross the small companion, along with features in the surroundings and core of M51 itself." The results are amazing, and the battle between 60,000-light-year-wide NGC 5194 and its companion NGC 5195 have never been so crisp and beautiful before. [NASA]
Photo: Rupak De Chowdhuri/ A Greenpeace activist carries a model of the earth during a mock funeral procession in New Delhi December 21, 2009.
Some groups and activists are in danger of inspiring people to do nothing about climate change due to disappointment over Copenhagen. This would be exactly the wrong thing to do! Extended criticism and finding blame is not helpful and it threatens action of all kinds on global warming, and could even lead to people giving up. That’s the danger of dwelling on it. Let’s move on. Forget Copenhagen, and in addition, maybe the world should stop looking to the UN to solve problems. It’s obviously a waste of time, considering the years spent on these meetings already, and a failure called the Kyoto Protocol and fighting about money and resources the main things to come out of those years.
We need to spread the word that activists need to double their efforts instead and approach this global problem from another direction: individual countries should try to top each other in leading the charge to fight climate change and develop clean energy and technology. Let’s inspire a global warming technology/clean energy race, like the moon race of the 1960s. Competition between countries on solving climate change might do it. We need to pressure our governments to fund clean energy and technology. Thomas Friedman understood this when he wrote:
Maybe the best thing President Obama could have done here in Copenhagen was to make clear that America intends to win that race. All he needed to do in his speech was to look China’s prime minister in the eye and say: “I am going to get our Senate to pass an energy bill with a price on carbon so we can clean your clock in clean-tech. This is my moon shot. Game on.”
Because once we get America racing China, China racing Europe, Europe racing Japan, Japan racing Brazil, we can quickly move down the innovation-manufacturing curve and shrink the cost of electric cars, batteries, solar and wind so these are no longer luxury products for the wealthy nations but commodity items the third world can use and even produce.”
Queen Elizabeth gets the idea too, as she urged people to keep searching for solutions in her annual Christmas address. Leadership on climate change in one country will inspire it in others.
One thing that won’t inspire action on climate change is disappointment with world leaders and blaming them for not doing what we wanted. And climate scientist James Hansen probably had it right when he expected nothing great to come from Copenhagen in the first place. He’s right when he wants this failure to open new ways for us to solve the enormous challenges of climate change. A recent interview with him is below.
NASA climate scientist James Hansen never expected the U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen to amount to much. He told the British Guardian newspaper that it would be better if Copenhagen failed. That’s [...]
First there was the shoe bomb. Now Al Qaeda has taken it to the next level: Yesterday's failed terrorist attack was supposed to be delivered by a suicide bomber with the payload sewn into his underpants.
ABC News is reporting that Al Qaeda sewed about 80 grams of PETN, an explosive that's similar to nitro-glycerin, into the Nigerian attacker's underwear. For comparison, the shoe bomber only had about 50 grams in his footwear. Luckily, officials are saying the detonator was either too small or wasn't making proper contact with the explosive.
What does this mean for the future of airline security? After the shoe bomb attempt, we all had to start taking off our shoes at the screening line. Are we going to start walking through the detector in our birthday suits now?
Security expert Bruce Scheiner points out that increased security in these sorts of situations just doesn't work, because the tools TSA uses can't detect schemes like these:
I don't want to even think about how much C4 I can strap to my legs and walk through your magnetometers.
Not to mention how ineffective the whole no movement during the last hour of flight idea is. In his words:
Do we really think the terrorist won't think of blowing up their improvised explosive devices during the first hour of flight?
For years I've been saying this:
Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.
This week, the second one worked over Detroit. Security succeeded.
Whatever inconveniences this may cause, I'm just glad that we averted another disaster. It's pretty unbelievable that twice—twice!—this stuff has snuck by security in various articles of clothing, and both times we've been incredibly lucky that no one got hurt.
Here's to hoping airport security figures out a way to accurately screen for explosives attached to the body soon, without needing all of us to get a little too friendly with each other at the metal detector. [ABC News]
Images via Pinkycay, Fastfission
Discovery Channel's Everest: Beyond The Limit Air Dates Announced
Schedule information, Discovery Channel
"Now in its third season, the Discovery Channel's Everest: Beyond The Limit is taking a new approach to filming this year and will feature both International Mountain Guides and Himalayan Experience in a five-part series. IMG climber Scott Parazynski returned to Everest this season after coming tantalizingly close last year. The former Nasa Astronaut was sidelined with a ruptured lumbar disc at 24,500' on his summit bid in 2008. This year Scott came back fit and ready to top out with Danuru Sherpa. Scott achieved his goal at dawn on May 20, 2009. A veteran of several space flights and spacewalks, Scott is the only person to both summit Mt. Everest and fly in space."
An Astronaut Atop Everest, OnOrbit
Neil Hosenball NASA General Counsel, Washington Post
"S. Neil Hosenball, 84, the general counsel of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from 1975 until his retirement in 1985, died Dec. 23 at his home in Arlington County. He had cancer. Mr. Hosenball was a 25-year veteran of the space agency, where he became the chief lawyer. He worked on treaties for the peaceful use of outer space, among other issues."
