You realize that Thorazine is an antipsychotic, not an antidepressant, right? Replaying the joke in slow motion, in case you missed the details:
Original quote: "Antidepressants work no better than a placebo." Joke response: "He's delusional! Quick, give him some Thorazine! Or sugar! Whichever you can get faster."
Thus, they'd be giving him sugar for his delusions of antidepressants being a placebo. Hilarity ensues.
You know they're talking about the apex of human technology when they control tenths of a degree of inclination of a robotic car running over another planet.
I can't even know the angle of the keyboard I'm writing this, with such precision.
You think they are exactly the same, but they are always slightly diffenert. The reader concludes the similarities between both are absolute; however, by a negligible disparity, that is not so.
What you describe is the Kármán line, but apparently, there are different possible definitions in use in different environments.
Directly from the wikipedia: "Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an end to Earth's atmosphere: An atmosphere does not technically end at any given height, but becomes progressively thinner with altitude. Also, depending on how the various layers that make up the space around the Earth are defined (and depending on whether these layers are considered as part of the actual atmosphere), the definition of the edge of space could vary considerably: If one were to consider the thermosphere and exosphere part of the atmosphere and not of space, one might have to place the boundary to space as high as about 10,000 km (~6210 miles) up."
Did you really just reply: "There are no differing opinions, mine is the correct one."? Indeed, I just did that.
For some reason I really thought there was an official Edge of Space and that there was a sharp step in gas density between the gases inside and outside.
I think you can compare it to the height of the atmosphere. While the "size" is debatable based on differing definitions, the important thing is knowing what the state of the medium is at various altitudes. Yes, but the height of an atmosphere is not arbitrary, it's the highest point where the planet's gravity still manages to keep his surrounding gas. It may vary with time of position, but it's not an imaginary limit.
(After the first post I discovered that the galaxy limit is real: i.e.: the separation between Intergalactic Medium and Interstellar Medium).
Is there any physical effect where a galaxy ends? Or are we just talking about an imaginary limit.
How hard is it to map the galaxy? If we don't know where the stars are, we can't know the size. If we know, we don't need it; we can describe the actual, real, shape.
Where's the flaw in my logic? (I hope it's in the part about the limit being imaginary, I like limits in Space like the heliosphere)
You can patent a process on how to build an engine and then go on to publish a copyrighted work that thoroughly describes how to build the engine. I fail to see any validity in your argument. My argument was simply that it's meaningless to follow:
- Math can't be patented. - Computer programs are applications of math. Therefore: Computer programs should not be patentable.
My way of trying to convey that thought was by the example of an obviously patentable result of a different application of an also obviously non patentable element.
Of course the article raises the very obvious point that if a guy with a pair of binoculars in his back yard can spot a satellite, so can the Chinese government.
Just think what the Chinese government would be capable of if they were to stand in this guy's backyard with his binoculars!
It was a rhetorical question. He was implying that if the Chinese Government were to stand on that guy's backyard with his binoculars, they'd spot the satellite.
But don't worry, we're already mining the backyard so that can't ever happen.
You can't simply spout a bunch of hyperbole and expect to be taken seriously. Especially in reply to an article that attempts to actually determine those numbers and percentages based on facts. Excuse me, but my reply was not to the article but to:
"The incomprehensibly massive scale of the universe dictates it to be true, statistically-speaking."
They are totally unreasonable in just about every sense. Learn some basic astronomy before pulling "calculations" out of your ass. 1 - I did state I was inventing the data. 2 - I would be interested in your estimations.
You are currently violating my patent, 5,235,354,434,434: Method of doing business by ignoring software patents. You're clearly referring without permission to the lyrics of my last song "5,235,354,434,434".
Prepare to be sued.
P.S.: "Fiiiiive triiiiilioooons, two hundreeeed thir..."
you can't patent novels but you can copyright them, the same is true for maths you can't patent an algorithm but you can copyright you particular written version of that algorithm Ok, then books about how to build a particular engine. They are only words too.
I agree with your reasoning, but not with the way you put it.
if you can't patent maths then why should you be able to patent software as it's nothing more than maths. If you can't patent words then why should you be able to patent novels as they're nothing more than words.
if humans could at least travel close to the speed of light If humans could travel at speeds close to c, we wouldn't need to have immortality. The slowness of time would allow the travelers to reach the stars in a normal lifespan.
No shit that there are other planets like ours out there. The incomprehensibly massive scale of the universe dictates it to be true, statistically-speaking. 9 * 10^21 stars.
It's big, but it's not so big.
Imagine we discover:
That the chance of a star to have planets is one in a million. Doesn't seem impossible, does it?
The chance of a star with planets to have one at the correct distance (taking star heat in consideration) to be between 0 and 100 C, one in a billion.
The chance of a planet in the correct position to have water. One in a million.
So, we still have nine planets. Now, cross your fingers that one of those is not radioactive, doesn't show the same side to the star (that happens quite often), is big enough to have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere, etc.
I've just invented the chance of those conditions to present, but they are not unreasonable. The universe is actually not so big when each of the very many conditions we need remove a chunk of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Next time, the government will react faster.
Original quote: "Antidepressants work no better than a placebo."
Joke response: "He's delusional! Quick, give him some Thorazine! Or sugar! Whichever you can get faster."
Thus, they'd be giving him sugar for his delusions of antidepressants being a placebo. Hilarity ensues.
You know they're talking about the apex of human technology when they control tenths of a degree of inclination of a robotic car running over another planet.
I can't even know the angle of the keyboard I'm writing this, with such precision.
What you describe is the Kármán line, but apparently, there are different possible definitions in use in different environments.
Directly from the wikipedia: "Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an end to Earth's atmosphere: An atmosphere does not technically end at any given height, but becomes progressively thinner with altitude. Also, depending on how the various layers that make up the space around the Earth are defined (and depending on whether these layers are considered as part of the actual atmosphere), the definition of the edge of space could vary considerably: If one were to consider the thermosphere and exosphere part of the atmosphere and not of space, one might have to place the boundary to space as high as about 10,000 km (~6210 miles) up."
Without assembly knowledge we'd have uncrackable IP "protection" schemes.
For some reason I really thought there was an official Edge of Space and that there was a sharp step in gas density between the gases inside and outside.
(After the first post I discovered that the galaxy limit is real: i.e.: the separation between Intergalactic Medium and Interstellar Medium).
When you say "light year" you mean a "low fat year"? Or it goes all the way to "fat free year".
P.S.: You may want to check your data, a year is a long time to stay under 3 grams of fat per serving.
Ok. So there's actually a physical limit: the border between the intergalactic medium (IGM) and the interstellar medium (ISM).
Pretty, pretty Universe.
Is there any physical effect where a galaxy ends? Or are we just talking about an imaginary limit.
How hard is it to map the galaxy? If we don't know where the stars are, we can't know the size. If we know, we don't need it; we can describe the actual, real, shape.
Where's the flaw in my logic? (I hope it's in the part about the limit being imaginary, I like limits in Space like the heliosphere)
Answer: Yes, No, Maybe.
You forgot the CowboyNeal answer.
- Math can't be patented.
- Computer programs are applications of math.
Therefore: Computer programs should not be patentable.
My way of trying to convey that thought was by the example of an obviously patentable result of a different application of an also obviously non patentable element.
Of course the article raises the very obvious point that if a guy with a pair of binoculars in his back yard can spot a satellite, so can the Chinese government.
Just think what the Chinese government would be capable of if they were to stand in this guy's backyard with his binoculars!
It was a rhetorical question. He was implying that if the Chinese Government were to stand on that guy's backyard with his binoculars, they'd spot the satellite.But don't worry, we're already mining the backyard so that can't ever happen.
If that entire text is yours, know that, in my eyes at least, you're a superior writer than most of what I find here.
"The incomprehensibly massive scale of the universe dictates it to be true, statistically-speaking."
(Speaking of hyperbole and statistics jokes).
2 - I would be interested in your estimations.
Prepare to be sued.
P.S.: "Fiiiiive triiiiilioooons, two hundreeeed thir..."
I agree with your reasoning, but not with the way you put it.
It's big, but it's not so big.
Imagine we discover:
That the chance of a star to have planets is one in a million. Doesn't seem impossible, does it?
The chance of a star with planets to have one at the correct distance (taking star heat in consideration) to be between 0 and 100 C, one in a billion.
The chance of a planet in the correct position to have water. One in a million.
So, we still have nine planets. Now, cross your fingers that one of those is not radioactive, doesn't show the same side to the star (that happens quite often), is big enough to have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere, etc.
I've just invented the chance of those conditions to present, but they are not unreasonable. The universe is actually not so big when each of the very many conditions we need remove a chunk of it.