Slashdot Mirror

"If you can't have a gun, then you are not free" is not the same statement as "if you can have a gun, then you are free".

Hope this helps!

It seems to me that any mission taking months of time, would use some kind of artificial gravity. Artificial gravity would be needed for the astronauts health and muscle tone as well as medical emergencies requiring surgery.

Research:
"help ward off the debilitating loss of muscle and bone due to weightlessness on long missions"
Here is the physics:
Simulated Gravity with Centripetal Force

Does anyone know of plans for the Mars mission (what kind of vehicle will be used)?

It does: http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/math/algtrig/ATP8b/exponentialResource.htm . It falls off as e to the negative one seventh times height in kilometers. I couldn't find a plot though, argh. According to: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JaredGoldberger.shtml, at the top of everest atmopheric pressure is 30kPa, 101 or so is normal at sea level, so it is a bit less than a third there.

The Bible says the earth is a circle, i.e. flat. NASA says the earth is an oblate spheroid that is very very slightly fatter at the bottom. http://bible.cc/isaiah/40-22.htm http://regentsprep.org/Regents/earthsci/units/intr oduction/oblate.cfm

The Bible says that the Earth was created in 6 distinct phases. So do most geologists, biologists, and anyone else with half a clue about science.

What 6 phases are those? Cos i'm pretty sure most biologists would take issue with the claim that plants were created before the sun, and most cosmologists would not agree with the idea that the earth was created after space but before anything else like the stars.

You really need to read more than just creationist propaganda in order to have an accurate understanding of what science does and doesn't say. As it stands your remarks are the equivalent of saying "science say the sun revolves around the earth". That's how totally out of whack your comments are.

For you to say evolution hasn't kept current and has been discredited is just so totally divorced from reality it's not funny. For you're own sake open your eyes. Read something about evolution that isn't a piece of creationist propaganda. You are being lied to by people with an agenda. All these things that anti-evolutionists accuse science of, being blinkered zealots and using intellectual dishonesty to support an agenda, is just a total lie, and a total hypocrisy. I suggest you start by looking at http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

If after seeing both sides of the story you still aren't convinced, fair enough, but don't do yourself the disservice of relying one side of the story.

Centripetal-force-generated artificial gravity systems, like those envitioned by Arthur C. Clarke shown in the film 2001, have been studied by NASA and the Air Force for decades. Basically, it would require a structure of a few hundred meters radius rotating at a few rpm. The scale of such a habitat would be enormous, and the cost associated has not been shown to be warranted as of yet. However, the commercialization of space will probably bring about such an innovation out of necessity (for comfort).
Links here, here, and here.

The Falcon actually landed on the inside of a worm-like creature dwelling inside the asteroid. It's quite possible that its interior was pressurized.

Han Solo didn't know it was a worm until later. He thought it was just a barren asteroid with a hole in it, and yet he walked right outside as if he expected atmospheric pressure to be there (the moisture content, however, was odd enough to be noticed) Plus, the worm didn't close it's mouth until the ship was zooming away, so there was no barrier to prevent any internal gases from escaping into space.

(Furthermore, Star Wars biology is typified by large creatures residing in habitats that cannot possibly feed them. That worm is the most blatant example)

In reality, it isn't a "gaseous medium" that imposes the maximum velocity,

The key phrase you can search for in any physics book is "terminal velocity". It is the max speed of an object determined by when the air resistance and ongoing acceleration cancel each other out. Terminal velocity works the same way for a rock falling from a tower as it does for a rocket thrusting through the sky.

In a vacuum, there is no air resistance to counteract the acceleration, so the speed limit comes from fuel limits (which will eventually stop the accelerating) or speed-of-light. (And, other scenes in Star Wars have demostrated that speed-of-light is not insurmountable to them either)

So, by your logic...

Looks like somebody needs a refresher course in logic, lest (s)he continue making poor statements and claims.

The parent said:

Having IE, your window to the internet, being so deeply imbedded into your OS is only asking for problems.

This can be transcribed as:

App(embedded) -> problems

You said:

...if I run Firefox and don't use Outlook, Windows is a great OS to have, eh?

This can be transcribed as:

!App(embedded) -> !problems

This does not logically follow. The contrapositive would be something more like:

If App(embedded) -> problems, then !problems -> !App(embedded)

In other words, if using an embedded application results in problems, then the non-existence of problems implies a non-embedded application.

But thanks for trying to play along...

But doesn't it [Ceres] have a satellite? -- and -- What would we qualifty that as, because a satellite must orbit a planet.

It doesn't appear that Ceres has any satellites. But, there are 31 asteroids that do! That doesn't make them planets though...they're just small asteroids with really small moons.

Can anyone remind me what that sequence of numbers is called that vaguely predicts the distances of planets from the Sun?

Yep, its the Titius-Bode Law. Ceres does fit into this. But the reason we don't have a planet in between Mars and Jupiter is because "many astronomers think the asteroid belt is where a planet tried to form, but was pulled apart before it could solidify, caught between the strong opposing tugs of Jupiter and the sun's gravity." Quote taken from here.

Why does a planet _have_ to be a shpere...How perfect a sphere?

Well.... Ceres's shape is too distorted. Its shape is not spherical enough to be like regular planets. And, to get really technical, no planet is really a sphere. Due to rotation, all planets have a slightly distorted shape.