From what I recall of the original paper, 1-2 hours of actual labor with equipment and reagents many labs already have on hand--although it required 24-48hours in the furnace at each step which is the only reason for the delay and why the article author mentions we should see results tomorrow. So, trivial enough most people in similar labs already spent more time discussing the implications than actual labor/investment to replicate.
Zazen (za: seated, zen:meditation) is central to nearly every school of zen Buddhism. The name of zen alludes to this, and Watts' translation of chan/dhyuna as emptiness rather then meditation is unusual. Zen emerged in response to certain schools of bhudhism which put emphasis on making offerings and gaining merit over meditation. So in some respects it was de-empasizing religious ritual as the article alludes (though I feel authentic zen is very much a religion, albeit without a creator), but this was to put the emphasis back on meditation. Watts' de-emphasis of zazen in zen is therfore quite ironic.
To do zen, set some time aside each day to sit in a dignified pasture and place your awareness on your breath. As your mind wanders, notice this and bring your attention back to your breath. Repeat a hundred thousand times. Over time, the emptiness of these thoughts becomes apparent and your attachment to them weakens. But, don't attach to this emptiness either.
I see your point with many substances, but to characterize psychedelics as such is to completely misunderstand their effect and misunderstand the reason they may be of benefit in cases of addiction. But, such misunderstanding is understandable. Honestly, the best I can do is to describe the experience is to relate it to a shift in perspective ... like looking at a wire-frame drawing of a cube and mentally flipping which side is nearer. You never can see both frames of reference at the same time.
Even when I experimented with lsd (many years ago), precisely because of this shift I'd never really be able to remember or comprehend what I was getting into--let alone describe it--until I was in it. And when your in it, its seeing without the safety barriers your subconscious has erected. I've heard Buddhists monks relate: its like catching a glimpse of Nirvana without the spiritual work necessary to prepare you for it. Yes, seeing the awesome potential and absolute miracle of consciousness and life can be a truly ecstatic experience. But, being brought face-to-face with your failings and inadequacies before you're ready to see can be equally harrowing.
Towards the end, I was left to realize that although I kept showing up to class the lessons were over. The experience was no longer pleasurable, just disorienting. For most, it eventually becomes obvious that what you're experiencing is only a tired picture and that there is real work still to be done.
>> 2) Perhaps a blackout will give some HNers the final push (and time) to make some phone calls to their representatives.
I think far more effective than a complete blackout would be requiring HNers contact their representatives before they can access HN content. Not sure how best to implement, but a email form that grants a token upon completion should be feasible (you'd need to decide how to handle non-US based IPs).
I have my doubts regarding the effectiveness of form emails on congresspeople, but I imagine those HNers who were going to call or write a more personal letter still will, with the added benefit of massive form emails from those less motivated to do so otherwise.
This is exactly what HN should not do. Making a statement by having the site down for a day is one thing (although I'm also opposed to that, and I voted no in the poll), but actively forcing your users to help some cause even though they may have completely different opinion is something else entirely. I, for one, wouldn't want to participate on such a website. HN should support free thinking, not suppress it. I, as well as probably 95% of people here, am against SOPA. But if, for some reason, some of the HN users are pro SOPA, we should respect the fact that they have a different opinion on the matter and not force them to accept our views, even if we strongly disagree with them.
If people want to write to their congressperson, they should do that of their own accord, not because they're being pushed into doing that to access HN content.
Ironically, the reason this won't work is the same reason SOPA won't: proxies. HN is one of the largest gatherings of hackers anywhere; give us a break.
That's in addition to the fact that it's consensus that emails aren't worth a damn here.
And also the fact that it would take significant wasted effort to implement.
If PG did something like this, I'd lose all respect.
With your average presentation style red laser pointer I don't think there's any chance you'd be able to disturb a pilot. The astronomy pointer lasers and similar high powered units are what I understand to be the issue. They still look the same as a regular laser pointer pen, but emit a much more intense beam that remains visible for several miles.
When I played with a unit a friend had, at 200 yards the beam was already ~3' in diameter--so it's not exactly a tiny dot your trying to aim. In addition, you can see the beam as it travels through air, making it much easier to align if you were trying to aim it at something distant.
Edit: For a decent video of these handheld units in action, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAeF_bTF9CM. Units can be acquired relatively cheaply now (sub $100) which probably explains why this is an increasing trend.
Were you at the other end of that 200 yard beam? I remember playing with presentation lasers when I was a teenager. At night, you could light up the side of a building, visibly, from over a kilometer away. The divergence factor is certainly substantial - this makes it easier to hit a plane from distance - but it's still very bright. I remember thinking that they would make useful point-to-point morse code transmitters at night, because the "dot" is highly visible at the other end of the beam, even over substantial distances.
But I'd certainly agree that the astronomy lasers are a far bigger threat, the presentation lasers are more likely to be just a minor nuisance over any kind of range.
As others have said, practice is essential--especially in front of other people or at least a video camera.
Also, become comfortable with silence. Standing front-and-center in a crowded room and staying quiet for even a couple moments can be terrifying at first--much more difficult than actually speaking in public. As a result, many inexperienced speakers end up rushing through their entire speeches, reciting word for word what they practiced without emotion or even an awareness of what they are saying, too afraid of silence to stop for even a moment.
In reality, such pauses do wonders in not only breaking up the cadence of your speech to grab the audiences attention, but also allowing you the opportunity to collect your thoughts and contemplate what points you want to make on your next topic or what points you need to add before moving on. Try forcing yourself to pause for a couple seconds as you put up each new slide.
Although I usually like to have the first few sentences of a speech planned out verbatim to get the ball rolling smoothly, I still make a point of just standing quietly for about 10 seconds after the introduction. It's enough to get me comfortable with the feeling of silence so that I'll be able to pause and collect my thoughts later on, and just long enough to make the audience curious and attentive--ideally causing everyone to look up and be alert as your start into your speech.
