Doubling adaption rates of a new technology year over year is no small number no matter how you look at it, project these growth rates to next decade and see what happens. It's like a medieval European hearing about Mongol invasion and seeing the very first arrow sticking out of his roof and going "big deal, it's just one arrow".
You don't need to be a researcher in order to read the effing paper beyond headline before you write a news article about it. And you don't have to be a researcher in order to not make shit up that the original paper doesn't actually include.
It's not hard to kill cells, cancerous or otherwise, on a petri dish, a splash of vodka will do the trick. The next to impossible trick is to kill only cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells intact. Usually best you can do is to preferentially kill cancer cells, but there are a whole lot more normal cells than cancer cells in a body...
Sorry for your loss, it sucks. Unfortunately there is no magic pill for cancer, what exists is better than nothing, but nevertheless the chances are rotten especially if treatment starts at a late stage which it usually does for brain tumors. Nobody checks for brain tumors unless there are symptoms indicating something is wrong and by the time you get symptoms you are screwed already.
The answers to "How are you measuring this?" type questions can usually be found in Methods section of the paper. And they have a peer reviewed paper and you don't, so it's not even worth the effort to prove you wrong.
Regional specific-mass-change rates for 2006–2016
range from 0.1 metres to 1.2 metres of water equivalent per year,
resulting in a global sea-level contribution of 335 ± 144 gigatonnes,
or 0.92 ± 0.39 millimetres, per year.
usatoday.com converted that to 390 short tons? Wow, americans, go figure. It's also wrong, 335Gt is ~369 short tons.
http://stuffin.space/?search=2...
Yeah, the operators can certainly distinguish them provided they are working, just point an antenna on possible candidates until you get a communication with one that's yours. But with say Object BE and BD, even though you can tell which satellites they are, you can't tell which one is which one. If they have communications and GPS on board, they can tell you their orbits themselves, but if that's not the case, good luck figuring out which is which. Sats that have failed, you can't distinguish, one dead cubesat looks exactly like any other dead cubesat from ground.
X years of Y left applies in case of current prices, increase prices and you'll find that much more of Y can be found. If you went back in time to say 1960, looked at technology of the time and prices oil could be sold at and counted up all the reserves available for extraction, well these reserves are not the ones we are extracting today, these are already gone. We'll never run out of oil to extract, but we will run out of money to afford it. It's already happening, cost of ownership is the most significant reason for switching to electric cars. We will eventually stop extracting fossil fuels, but will it be soon enough? Don't forget that currently CO2 emissions are higher than they have ever been, by a significant margin and growing. Next few decades will make much more of an impact than last few decades.
At least half the people on your list are doing cool stuff with their money or are handing it out to charity all over the place. Keep in mind, most of their net worth is not in money, but in companies they own, which they would have to sell to make their net worth into money.
Jeff Bezos has his own space program
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg started The Giving Pledge, which basically amounts to billionaires promising to donate half their wealth to charity over time.
Gates in addition has a nuclear reactor development program in order to combat climate change.
Carlos Slim has committed billions to philanthropy, but not to the level of Gates crowd.
Larry Ellison has joined the Giving Pledge
Charles and David Koch have done quite a bit of philanthropy, focus on how much stuff they are involved in rather than the sums which are modest compared to some of the earlier entries.
Michael Bloomberg has donated massive sums to philantropy
The rest have donated more modest amounts, have done it quietly or have done squat.
If you look at it a bit more deeply, then you'll see it's only a matter of time until they'll get there. In fact I wouldn't be surprised at all if New Glenn launches exactly on schedule in 2021.
Keep in mind that this is before any one of these constellations is online, the moment first one shows sign of actual success you'll have everyone and their dog at it. The only question being, who can launch most satellites? It has been a long dream to do this in space sectors, but has so far been considered not viable from business perspective.
As for Kessler, it's not really a problem between functional satellites, you are not going to get two functional satellites collide if even one can maneuver. The problems are the ones that are going to fail and stick around up there for long term, incapable of maneuvering or determining their own orbit accurately. A working satellite can be monitored much more accurately than a dead one so the risk of colliding with anything is smaller.
It's inevitable that some satellites will fail before they can de-orbit themselves and it will be necessary to go and remove them before too many pile up. Luckily, that is something that can be done, it's only a question of money. Launch costs primarily. But as these constellations must continuously launch a bunch of replacement satellites anyway, they can also launch a few housekeeping satellites as needed.
As answer to 1) pretty broad actually, a single sat can provide many gbps of data streams. But you divide it between number of users in the range of that sat, so ymmv. In the middle of a metropolis you get squat, in the middle of Pacific you'll get very decent connectivity.
Any radio must have an hard off switch. What do you do when radio malfunctions and starts smoking or broadcasting gobbledygook all over the spectrum? That happens a lot more often than pilot maliciously turning transponder off and wanting to fly all sneaky like. By the way, if a pilot decides to suicide by crashing an airplane, then knowing where the plane is doesn't really help you, you still can't do squat about it.
What this system provides is global coverage of ADS-B receivers, that's all.
Huh, never thought of rabies that way. But yes, you and kevmeister are right, rabies does affect pretty much all mammals. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
A pathogen that affects entire class of animals, wow, just wow. That's an equivalent of a disease that affected all mammals indiscriminately, I didn't think such a thing was possible.
Huh? What do you know, Brits really don't consider referendums this way. My mistake, different country different customs it seems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Referendum is not the same as public opinion poll, anyone can do the latter, heck/. does that with theirs, currently asking "Do you enjoy 3D movies?". Referendums are very different animals with legal consequences just the same as elections.
Responsible government wouldn't have conducted that referendum to begin with. But in UK referendums are merely advisory, really? Directest form of democracy is just advisory? Over yonder referendums have power to roll over constitution if people so decide, there is no higher power than direct vote of the people. Of course, over here referendums are also not called willy-nilly as political power plays.
Slashdot Mirror
Doubling adaption rates of a new technology year over year is no small number no matter how you look at it, project these growth rates to next decade and see what happens. It's like a medieval European hearing about Mongol invasion and seeing the very first arrow sticking out of his roof and going "big deal, it's just one arrow".
You don't need to be a researcher in order to read the effing paper beyond headline before you write a news article about it. And you don't have to be a researcher in order to not make shit up that the original paper doesn't actually include.
Until you get results? https://xkcd.com/882/
It's not hard to kill cells, cancerous or otherwise, on a petri dish, a splash of vodka will do the trick. The next to impossible trick is to kill only cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells intact. Usually best you can do is to preferentially kill cancer cells, but there are a whole lot more normal cells than cancer cells in a body...
Sorry for your loss, it sucks. Unfortunately there is no magic pill for cancer, what exists is better than nothing, but nevertheless the chances are rotten especially if treatment starts at a late stage which it usually does for brain tumors. Nobody checks for brain tumors unless there are symptoms indicating something is wrong and by the time you get symptoms you are screwed already.
Blame the journalists not the scientists, they also got the figure wrong because the felt the need to convert to US customary units.
If you had read the paper, you would know they are not making their measurements only on springtime.
The answers to "How are you measuring this?" type questions can usually be found in Methods section of the paper. And they have a peer reviewed paper and you don't, so it's not even worth the effort to prove you wrong.
Regional specific-mass-change rates for 2006–2016 range from 0.1 metres to 1.2 metres of water equivalent per year, resulting in a global sea-level contribution of 335 ± 144 gigatonnes, or 0.92 ± 0.39 millimetres, per year.
usatoday.com converted that to 390 short tons? Wow, americans, go figure. It's also wrong, 335Gt is ~369 short tons.
Where does 390Gt number come from? The study being reported on says 335 ± 144 Gt / year.
That is the net change in mass.
http://stuffin.space/?search=2... Yeah, the operators can certainly distinguish them provided they are working, just point an antenna on possible candidates until you get a communication with one that's yours. But with say Object BE and BD, even though you can tell which satellites they are, you can't tell which one is which one. If they have communications and GPS on board, they can tell you their orbits themselves, but if that's not the case, good luck figuring out which is which. Sats that have failed, you can't distinguish, one dead cubesat looks exactly like any other dead cubesat from ground.
X years of Y left applies in case of current prices, increase prices and you'll find that much more of Y can be found. If you went back in time to say 1960, looked at technology of the time and prices oil could be sold at and counted up all the reserves available for extraction, well these reserves are not the ones we are extracting today, these are already gone. We'll never run out of oil to extract, but we will run out of money to afford it. It's already happening, cost of ownership is the most significant reason for switching to electric cars. We will eventually stop extracting fossil fuels, but will it be soon enough? Don't forget that currently CO2 emissions are higher than they have ever been, by a significant margin and growing. Next few decades will make much more of an impact than last few decades.
Jeff Bezos has his own space program
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Mark Zuckerberg started The Giving Pledge, which basically amounts to billionaires promising to donate half their wealth to charity over time.
Gates in addition has a nuclear reactor development program in order to combat climate change.
Carlos Slim has committed billions to philanthropy, but not to the level of Gates crowd.
Larry Ellison has joined the Giving Pledge
Charles and David Koch have done quite a bit of philanthropy, focus on how much stuff they are involved in rather than the sums which are modest compared to some of the earlier entries.
Michael Bloomberg has donated massive sums to philantropy
The rest have donated more modest amounts, have done it quietly or have done squat.
If you look at it a bit more deeply, then you'll see it's only a matter of time until they'll get there. In fact I wouldn't be surprised at all if New Glenn launches exactly on schedule in 2021.
As for Kessler, it's not really a problem between functional satellites, you are not going to get two functional satellites collide if even one can maneuver. The problems are the ones that are going to fail and stick around up there for long term, incapable of maneuvering or determining their own orbit accurately. A working satellite can be monitored much more accurately than a dead one so the risk of colliding with anything is smaller.
It's inevitable that some satellites will fail before they can de-orbit themselves and it will be necessary to go and remove them before too many pile up. Luckily, that is something that can be done, it's only a question of money. Launch costs primarily. But as these constellations must continuously launch a bunch of replacement satellites anyway, they can also launch a few housekeeping satellites as needed.
As answer to 1) pretty broad actually, a single sat can provide many gbps of data streams. But you divide it between number of users in the range of that sat, so ymmv. In the middle of a metropolis you get squat, in the middle of Pacific you'll get very decent connectivity.
What this system provides is global coverage of ADS-B receivers, that's all.
And does anyone have a public list of TLEs for the debris cloud? Or at least a list of apogees and perigees?
Huh, never thought of rabies that way. But yes, you and kevmeister are right, rabies does affect pretty much all mammals. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
2 clades even, salamanders too
A pathogen that affects entire class of animals, wow, just wow. That's an equivalent of a disease that affected all mammals indiscriminately, I didn't think such a thing was possible.
Huh? What do you know, Brits really don't consider referendums this way. My mistake, different country different customs it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Referendum is not the same as public opinion poll, anyone can do the latter, heck /. does that with theirs, currently asking "Do you enjoy 3D movies?". Referendums are very different animals with legal consequences just the same as elections.
Responsible government wouldn't have conducted that referendum to begin with. But in UK referendums are merely advisory, really? Directest form of democracy is just advisory? Over yonder referendums have power to roll over constitution if people so decide, there is no higher power than direct vote of the people. Of course, over here referendums are also not called willy-nilly as political power plays.