Agreed that the number is bogus. Another way to look at it: divide by the population of the US, ~300 million: 2*10^12 / 3*10*9 = over 600 tons of plastic for every person alive today. Taking 60 years as a convenient number for how long plastic has been around (actually longer, but I don't think it came into common use until later), that's ten tons of plastic per person per year--20,000 pounds, or fifty five pounds per day. I think I'd have gotten pretty tired hauling that much home from the grocery store.
I could sue you for plagiarism, those are almost my words. But...I suspect they were almost the words of tens of thousands of other (former) users of Google News. So instead, I'll say Amen, brother.
I once worked on a CDC Cyber 170/750, where you could not have spelled it Fortran. That's because it had a 6-bit character encoding system, with room for only upper case letters. (Ok, you could have printed in all lower-case letters, but the line printers only had upper case letters.) It was originally designed for numeric processing, so who needed a case distinction? Hence FORTRAN.
Then someone actually hacked it to allow both upper and lower case letters: a slash before any alphabetic character meant the lower case version of that character. Luckily, they also hacked the text editor to display '\A' as 'a' etc. And I wrote my linguistics dissertation on that system. This was in 1984.
Methinks we're recycling a whole lot more than we were in the 70s. And the car I'm driving now has a much reduced gas usage than the ones I drove in the 70s; same for many other people. (Not sure how to reuse my electricity.) But the problem still (allegedly) exists. So no, the solution is not easy.
Meaning we've been suffering a decades long drought, or a decades long heat wave? I don't think so. The claim is that the *weather* has been disrupted (in fact, made worse) by the climate change.
Mightn't he be saying that space (at least at that scale) is not flat? Consider a sphere, like the Earth. Then from a point on the surface of that sphere, construct two line segments on the surface at right angles and of equal length, and construct the diagonal on the surface between their ends. Depending on how long the segments are, the diagonal will range from approximately sqrt(2) times as long (for small segments) to 1 times as long (for segments which extend 1/4 of the way around the sphere).
That's a space with positive curvature. I suppose the ratio, and the way it changes with as the lengths measured vary, is different for space with a negative curvature, although I admit I can't intuit it...
I think linguists will need to be first. (Disclaimer: I am a linguist, with field experience. And I keep waiting for ET to phone home...)
As for the "conversation" part, it's going to be an odd conversation if they're, say, 100 light years away. That's 200 years for a round-trip communication.
"Hi! This is John Doe. How are you?"
"I'm fine, my name is Zlxyao. How are you, John Doe?"
"Dead."
"All we have is a tiny sample of matter right here." In 1835, Auguste Comte (a French philosopher) claimed that we would never be able to know the chemical composition of stars. Then someone discovered spectroscopy.
I program computers; changes don't confuse me. Changes without purpose (like tail fins on cars back in the 50s) annoy me, and changes that get in the way of what I want to do (like removing menus in Chrome, or replacing an easily modifiable menuing system with a virtually unmodifiable "ribbon" that lacks commands I need) are even worse.
"... the original Office ribbon, guess what is back?"
The menu?
I wish. That change alone made me switch to OpenOffice (now LibreOffice) at home. No such luck at work. After four years or more with the Ribbon, I still can't find things I need, and it still has all that junk I never use.
Yeah, I know, this is old stuff...
Huh??? So visible light of various colors, radio, X-rays, infrared, microwaves, gamma rays, ultraviolet light: these are not electromagnetic fields of varying frequencies (yes, and photons at the same time)? All of physics since Maxwell has been a hoax?
Your answer seems to imply that one could resurrect the N-1 today, add computer controls to it, and have a decent heavy lift rocket. But I wonder (I'm not pretending to be a steely-eyed rocket scientist, i.e. I'm not trolling): With 30 engines, there must be a huge number of moving parts (turbines, valves, gimbals on at least some of the engines, sensors,...). Wouldn't it be better to have a smaller number of engines (like five), and therefore a smaller number of moving parts?
"Create symlinks to swriter.exe on the desktop. Rename them Word. Tell people that Word has a new icon." They'll probably also thank you for bringing back the menus, in place of the ribbon. I know I would.
There's a comment that's been attributed to Lord Kelvin in 1900 (although there's apparently a good chance it may be apocryphal): "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." That was just prior to Einstein's 1905 publications.
There's a study of the motion of stars in globular clusters being done at Yerkes Observatory: http://astro.uchicago.edu/yerk.... They have an ancient refractor with a 40 inch lens. Now refractors have long since been replaced by reflectors in serious astronomy. But they were using this telescope because it allowed precise comparisons between pictures taken now and archival plates from a century ago, necessary to determine the slight apparent displacement of those stars.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed that the number is bogus. Another way to look at it: divide by the population of the US, ~300 million: 2*10^12 / 3*10*9 = over 600 tons of plastic for every person alive today. Taking 60 years as a convenient number for how long plastic has been around (actually longer, but I don't think it came into common use until later), that's ten tons of plastic per person per year--20,000 pounds, or fifty five pounds per day. I think I'd have gotten pretty tired hauling that much home from the grocery store.
I could sue you for plagiarism, those are almost my words. But...I suspect they were almost the words of tens of thousands of other (former) users of Google News. So instead, I'll say Amen, brother.
Me, I'm revolting--I frequency find too many Hz of current to be an impedance.
I once worked on a CDC Cyber 170/750, where you could not have spelled it Fortran. That's because it had a 6-bit character encoding system, with room for only upper case letters. (Ok, you could have printed in all lower-case letters, but the line printers only had upper case letters.) It was originally designed for numeric processing, so who needed a case distinction? Hence FORTRAN. Then someone actually hacked it to allow both upper and lower case letters: a slash before any alphabetic character meant the lower case version of that character. Luckily, they also hacked the text editor to display '\A' as 'a' etc. And I wrote my linguistics dissertation on that system. This was in 1984.
Vampires can't see themselves in mirrors (so I'm told).
Methinks we're recycling a whole lot more than we were in the 70s. And the car I'm driving now has a much reduced gas usage than the ones I drove in the 70s; same for many other people. (Not sure how to reuse my electricity.) But the problem still (allegedly) exists. So no, the solution is not easy.
Meaning we've been suffering a decades long drought, or a decades long heat wave? I don't think so. The claim is that the *weather* has been disrupted (in fact, made worse) by the climate change.
Mightn't he be saying that space (at least at that scale) is not flat? Consider a sphere, like the Earth. Then from a point on the surface of that sphere, construct two line segments on the surface at right angles and of equal length, and construct the diagonal on the surface between their ends. Depending on how long the segments are, the diagonal will range from approximately sqrt(2) times as long (for small segments) to 1 times as long (for segments which extend 1/4 of the way around the sphere). That's a space with positive curvature. I suppose the ratio, and the way it changes with as the lengths measured vary, is different for space with a negative curvature, although I admit I can't intuit it...
Aslan, maybe.
"1 in a googleplex": Wasn't that what Doc Brown said about Clara? That she was one in a googleplex?
I think linguists will need to be first. (Disclaimer: I am a linguist, with field experience. And I keep waiting for ET to phone home...) As for the "conversation" part, it's going to be an odd conversation if they're, say, 100 light years away. That's 200 years for a round-trip communication. "Hi! This is John Doe. How are you?" "I'm fine, my name is Zlxyao. How are you, John Doe?" "Dead."
"All we have is a tiny sample of matter right here." In 1835, Auguste Comte (a French philosopher) claimed that we would never be able to know the chemical composition of stars. Then someone discovered spectroscopy.
I program computers; changes don't confuse me. Changes without purpose (like tail fins on cars back in the 50s) annoy me, and changes that get in the way of what I want to do (like removing menus in Chrome, or replacing an easily modifiable menuing system with a virtually unmodifiable "ribbon" that lacks commands I need) are even worse.
Or tail fins on cars in the late 50s.
"... the original Office ribbon, guess what is back?" The menu? I wish. That change alone made me switch to OpenOffice (now LibreOffice) at home. No such luck at work. After four years or more with the Ribbon, I still can't find things I need, and it still has all that junk I never use. Yeah, I know, this is old stuff...
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu...
Huh??? So visible light of various colors, radio, X-rays, infrared, microwaves, gamma rays, ultraviolet light: these are not electromagnetic fields of varying frequencies (yes, and photons at the same time)? All of physics since Maxwell has been a hoax?
Your answer seems to imply that one could resurrect the N-1 today, add computer controls to it, and have a decent heavy lift rocket. But I wonder (I'm not pretending to be a steely-eyed rocket scientist, i.e. I'm not trolling): With 30 engines, there must be a huge number of moving parts (turbines, valves, gimbals on at least some of the engines, sensors,...). Wouldn't it be better to have a smaller number of engines (like five), and therefore a smaller number of moving parts?
Sounds like a lot of kids: "MOM!!!! He touched me!!!"
"Create symlinks to swriter.exe on the desktop. Rename them Word. Tell people that Word has a new icon." They'll probably also thank you for bringing back the menus, in place of the ribbon. I know I would.
Fuddie-duddie! I resemble that remark!!!! And I'm computer literate, too (I can tell you how to submit your job as a computer deck).
There's a comment that's been attributed to Lord Kelvin in 1900 (although there's apparently a good chance it may be apocryphal): "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." That was just prior to Einstein's 1905 publications.
Tucson, say.
There's a study of the motion of stars in globular clusters being done at Yerkes Observatory: http://astro.uchicago.edu/yerk.... They have an ancient refractor with a 40 inch lens. Now refractors have long since been replaced by reflectors in serious astronomy. But they were using this telescope because it allowed precise comparisons between pictures taken now and archival plates from a century ago, necessary to determine the slight apparent displacement of those stars.
And that's why Yahoo's email is such a hit. Like this: http://www.webpronews.com/even...