We also set up an excellent photo booth with the same setup.
A DSLR, on a tripod, a cheap remote trigger, and some photography lamps. We used drapes to box it off a bit. Throw in some inflatable props, and let the kids/drunks make it awesome.
The photos on the TV just encouraged others to join in the fun.
Because that leads to a snowballing effect. Money begets money. Over generations, it gets sucked into an ever smaller pool of people. This (among other things) led to serfdom etc in the Middle Ages. We only broke out of that due to the Black Death.
We need a way to allow money to spread back to the general populous. An inheritance tax is a crude, but effective, way to do that.
How would you go about achieving this?
Less than 10 years ago, though they were getting obsolete at the time.
I had good luck with these at my wedding. Instead of disposable cameras, I put cheap digital cameras. It didn't take long for guests to realise that the pictures were appearing on a large tv, in a sideshow. People got a lot more creative when they realised they would be seen quickly, not weeks later.
I managed to get them working without proprietary software, too. The onboard script logged into WiFi and uploaded the photos over ftp.
Given their size and the level of tech at the time, it was pretty impressive.
0.5% is so tiny that it disappears into the noise. It's a 1 in 200 difference. In theory, it would make a difference. In practice, you won't be able to measure it. Other confounding factors would bury it.
The difference is about 0.5%. A mass weighing 100kg at the north pole would only weigh 99.5kg at the equator. Most of the difference is the centerfugal force of the earth's rotation.
I've not checked the numbers, but apparently it's detectable in Olympic sports. More height records get broken at equatorial latitudes that higher ones.
Most of the problem with lasers come from focusing them. The eye is incredibly good at it. This means even a small laser pen can reach MW/m^2 ranges by the time it hits the retina.
IR is a different story (at longer wavelengths). Without the ability to see it, our eye will not attempt to focus on it. Also, our eyes lenses are not particularly transparent to it. 3rd, the ultra short pulses mean that there is no time to focus.
As for the mosquito, the laser is tuned to a frequency that is strongly absorbed by their wings. Given their size and how delicate their wings are, a tiny amount of energy can cause significant damage. Conversely, the same energy on our eye will just cause a slight amount of heating. The bulk mass of the eye will absorb this fine, with no damage
It used a micropulse of IR laser. Your eye couldn't see it, nor focus it properly. However, it had just enough power to overheat and damage the mosquito wings.
I believe the issue was with the targeting. It could don't, but not cheap enough for the mass deployment they intended. Mosquito nets were far more effective, once cost was accounted for.
Ultimately, physics follows the maths, everything else is interpretation to comprehend what the maths is telling us.
In relativity, gravity is a smooth, continuous distortion of spacetime. In QM, gravity is just another force, mediated by the graviton. Both theories are consistent with the known maths. The fact that they don't agree shows the large hole we have in the maths.
In short, we don't know what gravity is. Then again, we don't know what most things are, once we did deep enough. We just have maths, with interpretations that let our monkey brains make sense of them.
My favourite example ample of this is the "dark sucker theory". Envision a universe where light producing objects don't produce light, but suck up dark. We can make the model work for our universe. The reason we don't use it is due to it being harder to work with than the light emitter model. Another one is the rabit hole of what relativity says about the existence of light (hint light doesn't exist, from light's point of view).
The big bang wasn't an explosion in space, but OF spacetime. Anything that might have existed before would have been fundamentally different, and completely destroyed in the event.
The forces, to be a useful modelling tool, need a medium to interact with matter. E.g. an equivalent of charge would always be zero, if matter didn't have the ability to have charge. At that point, it effectively doesn't exist.
Interestingly, the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces are also aspects of the same force. They unify at high enough energy levels. They only appear different. The exception is gravity. It doesn't fit the mould. Basically we don't currently have 4 forces, but only 2. Scientists suspect it's actually only 1, but can't yet unify gravity into a theory of everything via a theory of quantum gravity.
I've seen "personal identification PIN number" used far too much in the press. I'm not sure who it says more about, journalists, or their readers.