print the damned thing out, black out the parts that embarrass the President and your Director with a magic marker and scan it to a TIF file (that's a graphics format, guys. Pay attention!) and "print" THAT to PDF. WRONG!
The official method is:
1 - Print the document. 2 - Cut the private parts away with a cutter. 3 - If you've not castrated yourself, you should have a paper with holes. Put it in a wooden table. 4 - Make a photo of said table. 5 - Load the photo in a power point. 6 - publish the ppt file.
Boards about obscure topics don't need as much (or any) moderation cause spammers don't visit them, and annoying immature trolls, don't know such things exist let alone there are msg boards about them. I respectfully disagree. You're disregarding automatically generated spam, that infects even totally empty boards.
Furthermore, you may argue the $12M are in case c1 c2; an otherworldly result that would probably destroy the poor researcher's mind with it's alien incomprehensibility.
Otherwise, one bad moderator, or one good poster can make a big difference, hiding the effects of censorship. I understand why one bad poster can't make a big difference, but why can't one good moderator?
Maybe by doing so we can avoid the simple metric to english conversion issues of the past... Converting metric to english units is clearly harder than anyone thought and much riskier.
They're just learning from past mistakes.
Much like the experienced worker that estimates a month for a two hour job.
I can't seem to find the artist's view of the failed mission, with the Phoenix lander splattered all over the place and bits falling back down on Spirit and Opportunity... They should keep both versions hidden and then show the correct one after knowing the result. Like in sports events.
"The lander exploded in, according to latest estimations, about 13,000 pieces. As you may see in this depiction, some of those pieces may hit opportunity and start a chain reaction of exploding landers."
not wanting to be harsh, but it doesn't sound like you've thought it through too much. try running your car into something at 16km/hr and get back to me. So, your way of studying the landing speed limit of an object in another planet is crashing you car into objects.
Well, now that you started with the ad hominem, let me do a follow up.
Obviously just about everyone who reads this news understands the implications of a landing at 16km/h. Please make an effort to avoid thinking anyone might be under your intellectual level; you'll fail more often than not on that one.
Because even at 8km/h you can do serious damage. You could replace 8km/h for 4km/h in your entire reasoning and it would still stand, yet neither would address my point.
I do understand that 8km/h is not an arbitrary limit. However, stating the landing problem as "There is only one chance! They absolutely must do this or everything will fail!" seems much more oriented to make the news more exciting than because of 8km/h being the perfect speed to put the lander on Mars.
Maybe you should call some engineer at NASA and tell them about these ideas? You mean I should call the journalist responsible for the press release and tell him to remove sensationalism when writing about serious matters.
"the spacecraft must complete a challenging sequence of events"? Come on.
here's a very good article on the Phoenix lander with a couple of fantastic artistic concepts based on the actual Phoenix. The bird? The city? The A-Team member?
In seven minutes, the spacecraft must complete a challenging sequence of events to slow to about 8 kilometers per hour... Why reducing the box? Is there any reason to discard a higher speed landing?
What if they find a way of slowing down to 16kmh, they abandon the mission?
I'm not talking about considering compressing time continuum to extend those 7 minutes, but it seems there are possibilities that could still be considered, like hardening the legs, finding a softer spot to land, finding a lower landing spot to extend braking time, etc.
My same themed joke (that I latch to yours to keep an order) was:
'This is not a trip to grandma's house. Putting a spacecraft safely on Mars is hard and risky,' said Ed Weiler, So no wolves then?
Exciting as these subjects are, what I'd really like to see is someone tackling these:
1. What are particles? - Particles are simply assumed a priori. Nobody has ever managed to explain what a particle is. 2. What is time - why is it different from space? 3. Mass is 'curvature of space', so to speak. So what is electric charge? 1 - Particle is a jam band formed in Los Angeles in 2000. The original members were Dave Simmons (guitar), Steve Molitz (keyboard), Eric Gould (bass), and Darren Pujalet (drums). Simmons died shortly after the formation of the band due to a sudden illness.
2 - Time is a rock 'n' roll / classic rock band based in Windsor, Ontario, consisting of four members; Tony Slater on lead guitar and vocals, Nikki London on rhythm guitar and vocals, Bon Clayton on bass guitar and vocals, Scary Carey on drums and vocals. They were quite different from Space, an indie rock band from Liverpool, England, who came to prominence in the mid-1990s with hit singles such as "Female of the Species", "Neighbourhood" and "Avenging Angels".
3 - Electric is an album by Paul Rodgers of Bad Company fame and Charge is the fifth album by The Aquabats. The album marks the band's debut on Nitro Records, and was followed by their first national tour in several years. The album is very similar in sound to the previous year's EP Yo, Check Out This Ride!.
you don't want to blind them to the fact that science at any kind of professional level is deeply steeped in complex mathematics. Then why teach them before they reach the mathematical understanding level needed to grasp the concepts?
Why not start with pure mathematics until reaching the highest level they may need and only then start with the physics?
For some reason teaching plans seem to still take into account the possibility of a child leaving the scholar system at any point. That may have been the norm half a century ago, but isn't anymore.
It might be time to consider the entire cycle as a single block of time where all has to be taught in the most optimal way, instead of gradually advancing every discipline equally.
Take a look around you folks -- this is our planet. We're stuck here. Get used to it. Stuck here for how long?
20 years? 50? 1000?
It's no reason to stop investigation. Your line of reasoning can be compared to saying studying distant galaxies is useless because we won't reach them anytime soon.
Maybe you find researching new forms of energy is useless because the petrol we still have will last at least for your life's length.
Climate change? The earth will most probably endure us for a couple hundred years, leave the investigation to our sons.
Exploring Mars may be useless if you're looking for instant rewards, but sooner or later we'll establish colonies there.
Maybe only jump bases for longer trips. Maybe sun energy collectors. Maybe "martian soy" production fields with robotic managers that regularly send the crop back to Earth. Who knows?
The problem with investigation is precisely that you need to start to be able to know where you're really going; sometimes you even reach a completely unexpected benefit.
And still, life's quite better now than in the 13th century.
Slashdot Mirror
The official method is:
1 - Print the document.
2 - Cut the private parts away with a cutter.
3 - If you've not castrated yourself, you should have a paper with holes. Put it in a wooden table.
4 - Make a photo of said table.
5 - Load the photo in a power point.
6 - publish the ppt file.
Apparently you have never worked for a government department.
Otherwise it's like having a flu vaccine released by managers that went nowhere near an immunologist or virologist.
or in the pharmaceutical industry. It's not lack of knowledge, it's optimism. Don't pop the pink bubble.
to make a plural. Do you say "boxs"?? No, I say "boces".
"Mr. Bond, I presume."
"No, my name is Database. ';Drop Database."
Khunting?
(flem, 'a', 'n'...)
Furthermore, you may argue the $12M are in case c1 c2; an otherworldly result that would probably destroy the poor researcher's mind with it's alien incomprehensibility.
Now they can moderate me (-1 Troll) and prove you wrong.
They're just learning from past mistakes.
Much like the experienced worker that estimates a month for a two hour job.
"The lander exploded in, according to latest estimations, about 13,000 pieces. As you may see in this depiction, some of those pieces may hit opportunity and start a chain reaction of exploding landers."
Well, now that you started with the ad hominem, let me do a follow up.
Obviously just about everyone who reads this news understands the implications of a landing at 16km/h. Please make an effort to avoid thinking anyone might be under your intellectual level; you'll fail more often than not on that one.
I do understand that 8km/h is not an arbitrary limit. However, stating the landing problem as "There is only one chance! They absolutely must do this or everything will fail!" seems much more oriented to make the news more exciting than because of 8km/h being the perfect speed to put the lander on Mars.
"the spacecraft must complete a challenging sequence of events"? Come on.
What if they find a way of slowing down to 16kmh, they abandon the mission?
I'm not talking about considering compressing time continuum to extend those 7 minutes, but it seems there are possibilities that could still be considered, like hardening the legs, finding a softer spot to land, finding a lower landing spot to extend braking time, etc.
Next they'll install Vista, put all their personal info on facebook and answer Nigerian spam.
The tri-state cat should be alive, dead or dog.
A real puzzle should involve:
- 4 dimensions.
- non-linear Time.
- curvature of space.
- non-linear mutation of laws of physics.
- inconstant truthness of mathematical axioms.
I meant the highest that will be covered in a given schooling block. i.e.: From birth to university.
Then, already in higher studies, they may distribute the teaching in very much the same way.
It will push the artificial intelligence field of image recognition to unthinkable heights.
Blind people around the world should praise China for their invaluable help.
If they can find China in any way of map representation it should surely be easy to discern among different types of porn.
From a purely algorithmical point of view, of course.
1. What are particles? - Particles are simply assumed a priori. Nobody has ever managed to explain what a particle is.
2. What is time - why is it different from space?
3. Mass is 'curvature of space', so to speak. So what is electric charge? 1 - Particle is a jam band formed in Los Angeles in 2000. The original members were Dave Simmons (guitar), Steve Molitz (keyboard), Eric Gould (bass), and Darren Pujalet (drums). Simmons died shortly after the formation of the band due to a sudden illness.
2 - Time is a rock 'n' roll / classic rock band based in Windsor, Ontario, consisting of four members; Tony Slater on lead guitar and vocals, Nikki London on rhythm guitar and vocals, Bon Clayton on bass guitar and vocals, Scary Carey on drums and vocals. They were quite different from Space, an indie rock band from Liverpool, England, who came to prominence in the mid-1990s with hit singles such as "Female of the Species", "Neighbourhood" and "Avenging Angels".
3 - Electric is an album by Paul Rodgers of Bad Company fame and Charge is the fifth album by The Aquabats. The album marks the band's debut on Nitro Records, and was followed by their first national tour in several years. The album is very similar in sound to the previous year's EP Yo, Check Out This Ride!.
Why not start with pure mathematics until reaching the highest level they may need and only then start with the physics?
For some reason teaching plans seem to still take into account the possibility of a child leaving the scholar system at any point. That may have been the norm half a century ago, but isn't anymore.
It might be time to consider the entire cycle as a single block of time where all has to be taught in the most optimal way, instead of gradually advancing every discipline equally.
20 years? 50? 1000?
It's no reason to stop investigation. Your line of reasoning can be compared to saying studying distant galaxies is useless because we won't reach them anytime soon.
Maybe you find researching new forms of energy is useless because the petrol we still have will last at least for your life's length.
Climate change? The earth will most probably endure us for a couple hundred years, leave the investigation to our sons.
Exploring Mars may be useless if you're looking for instant rewards, but sooner or later we'll establish colonies there.
Maybe only jump bases for longer trips. Maybe sun energy collectors. Maybe "martian soy" production fields with robotic managers that regularly send the crop back to Earth. Who knows?
The problem with investigation is precisely that you need to start to be able to know where you're really going; sometimes you even reach a completely unexpected benefit.
And still, life's quite better now than in the 13th century.