Surely the need to aim them depends on how many neutrinos you produce, compared to background levels. A circular shock wave can be detected, despite its complete lack of aim.
But I would like to hear more about how one aims neutrinos (or presumably the process that produces the neutrinos gets aimed), what its accuracy is, how wide the scatter is...
"Does the HOX clock run in every cell? If not, which ones? If each one, what keeps them in sync? Some cells are 3 days old during this process, some are brand new"
I'm the original OP, and yes, I wondered about this too--particularly how the current unwinding gets transmitted down the length of the animal as the cells undergo mitosis. Or maybe it only unwinds a little with each division, and only the cells at the posterior end (which I presume are in the last segment produced) govern further division? Except that the anterior cells must be dividing too, if the anterior end continues to grow (which it obviously must, sooner or later, otherwise we'd have pinheads).
It's an interesting story, but there are lots of unanswered questions.
I for one hate trying to keep track of where I am when I have to scroll (page, really) down while reading a long article--particularly when the (or ) takes me to the end of the long page, and the line I was reading before I scrolled down may be anywhere from the top of the new page to the bottom. If this new method allowed me to break a long page into a number of screen-length pages (or pane-length pages), then when I page down the last time, the next line of text to read would be the first line on the final page. And I would be a happy camper.
PDFs can be viewed like this, but since the pagination is pre-defined, you have to tell the PDF reader to enlarge or decrease the page size to exactly fit the pane. Which means that the font may be unreadably small. What I'd prefer, is a page length that adapts to the pane size.
There are plenty of Greek manuscripts around to do lexicography from. That used to be true only up through "classical" Greek (up to the 330 or so BC), but over a century ago, a lot of non-biblical Koine Greek manuscripts were found. (I have heard estimates of "tons", but that might be an exaggeration.) Two lexicographers, Moulton and Milligan, compiled a largish dictionary based on those manuscripts.
So yes, for Koine Greek we have plenty of attestations, from before and after and during the Biblical times, and we have a good understanding of what it means.
We're less certain about Biblical Hebrew, and there are indeed places (particularly, I think, in the Psalms) where there is some uncertainty about the meaning of words. There is some evidence from related languages (Aramaic, for example), and also from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, done several centuries BC).
I could reply to the "contemporary" part, but that gets into too many uncertainties. But I will reply to the "translated, copied and retranslated so many times" part (or at least the "translated...retranslated" part).
As far as we know, the New Testament was written in Greek. (There are some theories that the gospels, or at least Matthew, Mark Luke and John, were written in Aramaic. Some would say the entire NT, but that seems pretty unlikely, given the audience.) We have the NT in Greek. Yes, it's been translated many times: into Latin, and a thousand or more other languages. But that doesn't cause it to "lose most of its original meaning," because you can read it in Greek if you want to, or you can try to triangulate the original meaning by reading many different English (or French, or German, or...) translations which were nearly all done directly from the Greek.
Similarly, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, except for a few small parts written in Aramaic. Again, this has been translated into many languages, but you can still read it in Hebrew and Aramaic if you take the time to learn those languages. Or you can try reading multiple English translations, virtually all of which were done from the original Hebrew/ Aramaic.
I said "nearly all" and "virtually all." You can read the New Testament as translated from Latin, but that would be going through two stages of translation (Greek --> Latin --> English). Similarly, you can read the Old Testament as translated from Greek (the Septuagint translation, done one to three hundred years BC); again, two stages (Hebrew/ Aramaic --> Greek --> English).
About the copying issue: you might want to look into the differences between the Masoretic texts of the Bible, and those found at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls). While the latter are a thousand years or more older than the former, the differences are not that great. Copyists were apparently pretty careful.
In sum, it's not at all true that "it's lost most of its original meaning." On the contrary.
If it does, my cats want to buy one, so they can determine whether I've woken up in the morning to feed them. The door to my bedroom is shut at night, so for them, until I open the door I am in a state of indeterminate wakefulness.
(Ok, I'm in a superposition of awake and asleep at other times, too...)
reminds me of the line at the bottom of yesterday's (?)/.: "Q: How many Marxists does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: None, the light bulb contains the seeds of its own revolution."
I don't know what map you saw, but an orbit is pretty well defined laterally. The orbit is a great circle (ok, a great ellipse, and not on the ground) with a constant orientation and a known speed; the Earth turns beneath it at a known rate. The orbit is normally well defined vertically also, except when you start hitting air and it slows you down. Hence you can predict exactly (within a few miles) where the satellite will be, so long as it's not *too* much slowed down. And it won't be too slow until the last few hundred miles, when it hits enough air to start burning up.
The lines you saw are the great circles, where the Earth is turning under it. Since each orbits is about 90 minutes (until the last bit of the last orbit), the lines should be a constant distance apart (the distance the Earth rotates in 90 minutes). So yes, they are pretty exact, and the satellite will therefore come down pretty much on one of those lines.
I was hopeful when I heard that the 2010 Ribbon was customizable. And indeed, I was able to get rid of that useless 1980s mail merge ribbon (or tab or whatever it is) in Word. But the customizability is very limited. There appear to be pieces you can't get rid of (they're grayed out in the customization dialog), and limits to where you can put new pieces in. So far I have not intuited the reason why some commands can be added/ deleted, and some can't.
I've been using the **** Microsoft software since our office moved to Office2003, somewhere around 2007 (and more recently to Office2010). I am still puzzled by the conversion from what used to be mnemonic, easy to use menu system, to something that I have to study nearly every time I want to do something that I haven't done in a few days. The organization of the ribbon makes no sense to me.
As for learning new software, I do that all the time. Most of it increases my productivity. Some of it I like (Python, jEdit, SFST = Stuttgart Finite State Transducer), some I find frustrating (XSLT, for its difficulty in debugging), and some of it I find to be just change for the sake of change (the Ribbon). I will blame the Ribbon for my lower productivity when using Office, just as I will credit Python, jEdit, SFST and (more grudgingly) XSLT for my greater productivity in other areas.
Pictographs, or hieroglyphics. There's a good reason hieroglyphics were replaced by alphabetic writing systems. The ribbon takes us back 2500 years to hieroglyphics.
(In case it's not obvious, I'm agreeing with tftp, just using a different analogy.)
Is this the book that seemed to imply that satellites in polar orbits never passed over any part of the Earth but the poles?
(It's possible I mis-remember, but I'm pretty sure I didn't misunderstand--I recall reading the passage several times, trying to get some sensible interpretation out of it.)
The usefulness of Tritium vs 3He for nuclear bombs has nothing to do with chemistry, basic or otherwise. Nuclear bombs (and fusion reactions) take place between nuclei; chemistry takes place between electrons. I suspect you're right, though, that 3He doesn't fuse as easily as Tritium does. If it did, the output would be an isotope of Beryllium with 2 neutrons and 4 protons: 6Be, which has a half life of about 10**-20 seconds.
What newcastlejon means is that you have a closed fresh water circuit on the hot side, and an open water (fresh or salt) on the cold side. The boiler turns the fresh water into high temp high pressure steam, which cools and loses pressure as it spins a turbine (or a series of turbines, each designed for lower pressure/ temp). The final turbine exhausts into a condenser, where the steam turns back into liquid water, to be pumped back into the boiler. Thus a closed cycle, apart from leakage.
On the cold side, cool or (better) cold water comes into the condenser, separated from the fresh water side. (Typically the cool water runs through tubes, and the steam condenses on the outside of those tubes.) Thus an open cycle--cool water in from the environment, somewhat warmer water back out to the environment.
I was MPA on a steam turbine ship in the 1970s. Oil fired boilers output superheated steam at 975 degrees F and 1275 psi; the condensate was 80 to 100 degrees, and the pressure in the condenser negative 25 inches or so of Mercury (i.e. a relative vacuum). Commercial fossil fuel powered steam plants operate at a somewhat higher pressure/ temp, I believe.
Nuclear (fission) reactors usually add an additional loop of high pressure, high temp liquid water that over time becomes slightly radioactive; this water heats the water/steam loop. In these, I think the steam pressure and temp is rather lower, and not superheated.
I don't know, but I would guess that an operating fusion reactor would use a similar system to that of a fission reactor: a closed high temp/ high pressure liquid water, an intermediate closed loop of liquid water/ steam, and an open loop of cooling water.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we cannot reasonably assume that. Where did you go to school?
Surely the need to aim them depends on how many neutrinos you produce, compared to background levels. A circular shock wave can be detected, despite its complete lack of aim.
But I would like to hear more about how one aims neutrinos (or presumably the process that produces the neutrinos gets aimed), what its accuracy is, how wide the scatter is...
I wasn't aware of this--can you explain, or point me to a link?
Joke, right? Neutrinos are not something you can aim.
Steam powered "Snow Snake": http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wioconto/loggingphotos3.htm
"Does the HOX clock run in every cell? If not, which ones? If each one, what keeps them in sync? Some cells are 3 days old during this process, some are brand new"
I'm the original OP, and yes, I wondered about this too--particularly how the current unwinding gets transmitted down the length of the animal as the cells undergo mitosis. Or maybe it only unwinds a little with each division, and only the cells at the posterior end (which I presume are in the last segment produced) govern further division? Except that the anterior cells must be dividing too, if the anterior end continues to grow (which it obviously must, sooner or later, otherwise we'd have pinheads).
It's an interesting story, but there are lots of unanswered questions.
Stargate (the movie)
I for one hate trying to keep track of where I am when I have to scroll (page, really) down while reading a long article--particularly when the (or ) takes me to the end of the long page, and the line I was reading before I scrolled down may be anywhere from the top of the new page to the bottom. If this new method allowed me to break a long page into a number of screen-length pages (or pane-length pages), then when I page down the last time, the next line of text to read would be the first line on the final page. And I would be a happy camper.
PDFs can be viewed like this, but since the pagination is pre-defined, you have to tell the PDF reader to enlarge or decrease the page size to exactly fit the pane. Which means that the font may be unreadably small. What I'd prefer, is a page length that adapts to the pane size.
Not only that, but some people lived and died thinking there were *9* planets in our solar system!
There are plenty of Greek manuscripts around to do lexicography from. That used to be true only up through "classical" Greek (up to the 330 or so BC), but over a century ago, a lot of non-biblical Koine Greek manuscripts were found. (I have heard estimates of "tons", but that might be an exaggeration.) Two lexicographers, Moulton and Milligan, compiled a largish dictionary based on those manuscripts.
So yes, for Koine Greek we have plenty of attestations, from before and after and during the Biblical times, and we have a good understanding of what it means.
We're less certain about Biblical Hebrew, and there are indeed places (particularly, I think, in the Psalms) where there is some uncertainty about the meaning of words. There is some evidence from related languages (Aramaic, for example), and also from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, done several centuries BC).
> who really wants to live in a giant artificial dome?
Arnold? Oh, yeah, you're right.
I could reply to the "contemporary" part, but that gets into too many uncertainties. But I will reply to the "translated, copied and retranslated so many times" part (or at least the "translated...retranslated" part).
As far as we know, the New Testament was written in Greek. (There are some theories that the gospels, or at least Matthew, Mark Luke and John, were written in Aramaic. Some would say the entire NT, but that seems pretty unlikely, given the audience.) We have the NT in Greek. Yes, it's been translated many times: into Latin, and a thousand or more other languages. But that doesn't cause it to "lose most of its original meaning," because you can read it in Greek if you want to, or you can try to triangulate the original meaning by reading many different English (or French, or German, or...) translations which were nearly all done directly from the Greek.
Similarly, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, except for a few small parts written in Aramaic. Again, this has been translated into many languages, but you can still read it in Hebrew and Aramaic if you take the time to learn those languages. Or you can try reading multiple English translations, virtually all of which were done from the original Hebrew/ Aramaic.
I said "nearly all" and "virtually all." You can read the New Testament as translated from Latin, but that would be going through two stages of translation (Greek --> Latin --> English). Similarly, you can read the Old Testament as translated from Greek (the Septuagint translation, done one to three hundred years BC); again, two stages (Hebrew/ Aramaic --> Greek --> English).
About the copying issue: you might want to look into the differences between the Masoretic texts of the Bible, and those found at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls). While the latter are a thousand years or more older than the former, the differences are not that great. Copyists were apparently pretty careful.
In sum, it's not at all true that "it's lost most of its original meaning." On the contrary.
But don't take my word for it, do some research!
If it does, my cats want to buy one, so they can determine whether I've woken up in the morning to feed them. The door to my bedroom is shut at night, so for them, until I open the door I am in a state of indeterminate wakefulness.
(Ok, I'm in a superposition of awake and asleep at other times, too...)
reminds me of the line at the bottom of yesterday's (?) /.: "Q: How many Marxists does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: None, the light bulb contains the seeds of its own revolution."
I don't know what map you saw, but an orbit is pretty well defined laterally. The orbit is a great circle (ok, a great ellipse, and not on the ground) with a constant orientation and a known speed; the Earth turns beneath it at a known rate. The orbit is normally well defined vertically also, except when you start hitting air and it slows you down. Hence you can predict exactly (within a few miles) where the satellite will be, so long as it's not *too* much slowed down. And it won't be too slow until the last few hundred miles, when it hits enough air to start burning up.
The lines you saw are the great circles, where the Earth is turning under it. Since each orbits is about 90 minutes (until the last bit of the last orbit), the lines should be a constant distance apart (the distance the Earth rotates in 90 minutes). So yes, they are pretty exact, and the satellite will therefore come down pretty much on one of those lines.
And the rubbish is in your mind.
I was hopeful when I heard that the 2010 Ribbon was customizable. And indeed, I was able to get rid of that useless 1980s mail merge ribbon (or tab or whatever it is) in Word. But the customizability is very limited. There appear to be pieces you can't get rid of (they're grayed out in the customization dialog), and limits to where you can put new pieces in. So far I have not intuited the reason why some commands can be added/ deleted, and some can't.
I've been using the **** Microsoft software since our office moved to Office2003, somewhere around 2007 (and more recently to Office2010). I am still puzzled by the conversion from what used to be mnemonic, easy to use menu system, to something that I have to study nearly every time I want to do something that I haven't done in a few days. The organization of the ribbon makes no sense to me.
As for learning new software, I do that all the time. Most of it increases my productivity. Some of it I like (Python, jEdit, SFST = Stuttgart Finite State Transducer), some I find frustrating (XSLT, for its difficulty in debugging), and some of it I find to be just change for the sake of change (the Ribbon). I will blame the Ribbon for my lower productivity when using Office, just as I will credit Python, jEdit, SFST and (more grudgingly) XSLT for my greater productivity in other areas.
Pictographs, or hieroglyphics. There's a good reason hieroglyphics were replaced by alphabetic writing systems. The ribbon takes us back 2500 years to hieroglyphics.
(In case it's not obvious, I'm agreeing with tftp, just using a different analogy.)
They're going to live off all those old incandescent light bulbs.
This building wouldn't be a porta-potty, would it? That might explain the location of the pain...
Which was better?
Is this the book that seemed to imply that satellites in polar orbits never passed over any part of the Earth but the poles?
(It's possible I mis-remember, but I'm pretty sure I didn't misunderstand--I recall reading the passage several times, trying to get some sensible interpretation out of it.)
> What other state should particle physics be in, instead of decay . . . ?
The state of Texas? Oh, yeah, the SSC didn't get built... So I guess it must be in the state of Illinois, at Fermilab.
The usefulness of Tritium vs 3He for nuclear bombs has nothing to do with chemistry, basic or otherwise. Nuclear bombs (and fusion reactions) take place between nuclei; chemistry takes place between electrons. I suspect you're right, though, that 3He doesn't fuse as easily as Tritium does. If it did, the output would be an isotope of Beryllium with 2 neutrons and 4 protons: 6Be, which has a half life of about 10**-20 seconds.
What newcastlejon means is that you have a closed fresh water circuit on the hot side, and an open water (fresh or salt) on the cold side. The boiler turns the fresh water into high temp high pressure steam, which cools and loses pressure as it spins a turbine (or a series of turbines, each designed for lower pressure/ temp). The final turbine exhausts into a condenser, where the steam turns back into liquid water, to be pumped back into the boiler. Thus a closed cycle, apart from leakage.
On the cold side, cool or (better) cold water comes into the condenser, separated from the fresh water side. (Typically the cool water runs through tubes, and the steam condenses on the outside of those tubes.) Thus an open cycle--cool water in from the environment, somewhat warmer water back out to the environment.
I was MPA on a steam turbine ship in the 1970s. Oil fired boilers output superheated steam at 975 degrees F and 1275 psi; the condensate was 80 to 100 degrees, and the pressure in the condenser negative 25 inches or so of Mercury (i.e. a relative vacuum). Commercial fossil fuel powered steam plants operate at a somewhat higher pressure/ temp, I believe.
Nuclear (fission) reactors usually add an additional loop of high pressure, high temp liquid water that over time becomes slightly radioactive; this water heats the water/steam loop. In these, I think the steam pressure and temp is rather lower, and not superheated.
I don't know, but I would guess that an operating fusion reactor would use a similar system to that of a fission reactor: a closed high temp/ high pressure liquid water, an intermediate closed loop of liquid water/ steam, and an open loop of cooling water.
What? Huh?