John, while James had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better effect.
Mine goes up to eleven...
Re:100,000 years humans did not walk in asia
on
King Kong Lived?
·
· Score: 1
Generally, the larger the animal, the larger the brain. Elephants have brains much larger than people do. Are elephants much more intelligent? Or do you have to take a brain/body ratio, and then apply square-cube relations to really even things out?
I don't have any inside figures, so this is all speculation.
Apple charged the clone vendors too little for the OS.
If Apple licensed MacOS X to any X86 vendor at $1,000 per copy, the cloners wouldn't be able to undercut the price of the Mini or the eMac. And undercutting the smaller iMacs would be tough.
There is a price at which cloning makes sense to Apple. Right now, it looks like Apple is not willing to spend the time and effort to find that price.
Apple would have some control over what Dell sells by controlling the terms of licensing. What would make a "Dell Apple" an Apple is MacOS X. And that is Apple's. Dell would have to agree to Apple's terms.
If Apple could be as successful in negotiating OS licenses as Microsoft is, then Apple could foist all support costs for the users onto Dell. At a price that enables Apple to continue to sell high-margin machines.
I've been using Macs since System 5, and my fourth Apple machine is getting pretty long in the tooth. I have a new-ish Linux box to play with, and I have grown pessimistic on Apple's new strategy.
The gravitational pull of the spaceship on the asteroid is, by a strange coincidence, exactly equal to the gravitational pull of the asteroid on the spaceship. If the spaceship is close enough to the asteroid that its gravitational pull on the asteroid is greater than the force exerted by its thrusters, then the asteroid's gravitational pull on the spaceship would also exceed the spaceship's thrusters, and the spaceship would accelerate toward the asteroid. Which ends in *splat*. So the maximum pull on the asteroid is the maximum thrust of the spaceship's thrusters. So what's the point in not landing?
I don't see the advantage of using gravity vs. landing the spaceship on the asteroid, anchoring it, and then using the thrusters directly. An advantage of landing on the asteroid is that you can use some of the asteroid's mass as reaction mass.
Correct. In the late 1800s, congress passed a law taxing incomes. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have that power. The only way to overrule that decision was to amend the constitution. Thus, the Sixteenth Amendment. Took almost 50 years...
Apple introduced Macintosh computers based on the 68030 in 1988 (Mac IIx, Mac IIcx). Compaq introduced the 386 series of Deskpro computers earlier, in 1987. Given that machines had a 3 or 4 year lifespan, End-of-lifed machines with MMUs were available in 1991, when Linux was introduced.
Too much thrust from the SRB venting sideways and the damn thing starts to turn. If it turns enough, then you get aerodynamic loading where it wasn't designed to be; that could be enough to cause damage to the vehicle. Possibly causing the LOX/LH2 tanks on the upper stage to collapse. Which leads to an explosion.
Would the SRB motor nozzle be gimballed? How much could it steer? With Challenger, there were instrumentation traces showing that the SSMEs were at maximum gimbal keeping the machine on course before the external tank collapsed. Would someone watch that data stream and think "why are the rocket nozzles pointing that far sideways to keep the ship on course?" Would that person have the authority to scrub the mission by hitting the "fire escape rocket" button?
Would the Space Shuttle Main Engines (one on crew rocket; five on cargo) be reusable? Do they get them down, or let them burn up in the air? 5 shuttles * 3 engines per shuttle + spares equals how many? But if you throw the engine away after each flight, how many do you need to build?
Why, oh why, oh why doesn't Apple offer an 1080 HD capable iMac? This is for the living room, right? Apple's 16:10 ratio would be a 1920x1200 display to show High Definition. Instead, buyers get to choose between 1440x900 (17" display), or 1680x1050 (19").
The machines specs are nice enough: 1.9 or 2.1 GHz 64-bit G5, 512 MB RAM, built-in VGA camera (640x480), 802.11g wireless networking, gigabit ethernet, Radeon X600 Pro or XT with 128 MB on PCI-Express. 160 or 250 GB SATA HD. Slot-loading 8x SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW). No Modem. $1299 or $1699.
I think I'm still looking for a machine with the same power as an iMac in a shoe-box sized case with no display. Sitting next to my Linux box, with a KVM switch.
Alan Shephard's sub-orbital hop, which is what SpaceShipOne managed to replicate, was over 40 years ago.
The rocket contractors aren't in "this game" because it's a game. They have their gravy train, and they send payloads into space with some frequency, so they understand how hard it is to do. They're not interested in playing games.
I would be more than willing to let the machines drive me around for the parts of my journey that were on limited-access, multi-lane highways that had the appropriate infrastructure for the machines. I travel (mostly) to get places, and if I can get there without the boring bits demanding my attention (and consequent risks if my attention wanders), so much the better.
The choice of conditions reduces the problem space. I don't need to trust my car to do the right thing when a kid chases a ball out into the highway; it won't happen (unless there's a breakdown, and then the machine alerts me, following traffic, and slows down, yadda yadda yadda). Likewise, oncoming traffic. Blind curves... won't be there. Engineered for 70 mph, and going 70 mph. The robot won't have to decide whether the grade is too steep.
Sudden onset of poor driving conditions would be the hardest engineering and safety challenge.
When the car gets to the off ramp, I am rested and ready to do the driving again.
Given two theories of _equal_predictive_power_, the simpler one is to be preferred.
Comparing a simple theory that makes incorrect predictions, and a complex one that makes correct predictions, the complex one wins. Because it gets the right answer.
The universe is expanding. Has been expanind (in the minds of astronomers, at least) since Hubble's observations let him convince the rest of the astronomers.
An interesting question is "is the rate of expansion increasing or decreasing?" GR (even classical Newtonian gravitation) suggests that the expansion rate should be slowing. Observations of Type-I SuperNovae over the last decade or so suggest that they are brighter than we would expect if the expansion were slowing. This brightness is usually taken to indicate that they are closer than we think they are. Which suggests that their recession rate was smaller in the past than we observe now. Which implies that recession rates are growing, which is to say the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Are the math problems you encounter tackling general relativity or elementary particle physics "simple"? If so, you must be a math god.
Vector Calculus stops an awful lot of people, and tensors some more. Yes, GR can be summarized by one elegant equation, but the meaning of the symbols in that equation are totally opaque to 99.9999% of the population. Is that "simple"?
And recall, the goal is "as simple as possible, but no simpler". Not just "simple".
It is worth noting that a new idea surpassing current thinking (and demoting current thinking to wrong, old ideas) is not arbitrary. It is not a matter of the old scientists dieing off.
It is a matter of new ideas (a) explaining all of the old observations and experimental results that supported the old theory, as well as (b) explaining observations and experimental results that the old theory could not.
I am not capable of reviewing the observations and redoing the math to verify whether GR by itself explains the observed rotation rates of distant galaxies. Over the next few months more qualified scientists will look at this and publish what they think. Dark matter may go the way of the luminiferous aether. Once it is gone, it is very unlikely to come back in its original form or for its original purpose.
I wonder if this analysis has an effect on the chain of inferences leading to the conclusion that the galactic expansion is accelerating.
If the free market actually worked for information, there would be no "Intellectual Property" laws creating this fiction that ideas can be owned.
The free market assignes a value where captured marginal costs equal captured marginal revenues. The marginal cost of an information product is too low to measure. The free market would make information free.
IP laws are an intervention in the free market, because in the judgement of politicians, the results of barring entry of competitors and providing monopoly profits to authors and inventors is good. Please don't pretend that the results of this intervention is the magic of the marketplace.
The Federal Trade Commission got Microsoft to agree that the "per processor" licensing agreement was in restraint of trade. No penalties for prior infractions, and by changing to the completely different but functionally identical "cliff pricing" managed to continue the illegal practice.
Slashdot Mirror
John, while James had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had a better effect.
Mine goes up to eleven...
Generally, the larger the animal, the larger the brain. Elephants have brains much larger than people do. Are elephants much more intelligent? Or do you have to take a brain/body ratio, and then apply square-cube relations to really even things out?
I don't have any inside figures, so this is all speculation.
Apple charged the clone vendors too little for the OS.
If Apple licensed MacOS X to any X86 vendor at $1,000 per copy, the cloners wouldn't be able to undercut the price of the Mini or the eMac. And undercutting the smaller iMacs would be tough.
There is a price at which cloning makes sense to Apple. Right now, it looks like Apple is not willing to spend the time and effort to find that price.
Apple would have some control over what Dell sells by controlling the terms of licensing. What would make a "Dell Apple" an Apple is MacOS X. And that is Apple's. Dell would have to agree to Apple's terms.
If Apple could be as successful in negotiating OS licenses as Microsoft is, then Apple could foist all support costs for the users onto Dell. At a price that enables Apple to continue to sell high-margin machines.
I've been using Macs since System 5, and my fourth Apple machine is getting pretty long in the tooth. I have a new-ish Linux box to play with, and I have grown pessimistic on Apple's new strategy.
Do you realize that the shuttle can't get more than 300 or so miles from the earth's surface?
The gravitational pull of the spaceship on the asteroid is, by a strange coincidence, exactly equal to the gravitational pull of the asteroid on the spaceship. If the spaceship is close enough to the asteroid that its gravitational pull on the asteroid is greater than the force exerted by its thrusters, then the asteroid's gravitational pull on the spaceship would also exceed the spaceship's thrusters, and the spaceship would accelerate toward the asteroid. Which ends in *splat*. So the maximum pull on the asteroid is the maximum thrust of the spaceship's thrusters. So what's the point in not landing?
I don't see the advantage of using gravity vs. landing the spaceship on the asteroid, anchoring it, and then using the thrusters directly. An advantage of landing on the asteroid is that you can use some of the asteroid's mass as reaction mass.
Correct. In the late 1800s, congress passed a law taxing incomes. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have that power. The only way to overrule that decision was to amend the constitution. Thus, the Sixteenth Amendment. Took almost 50 years...
The only businesses worse than regulated monopolies are unregulated ones. They don't have to be efficient, and are usually enormously profitable.
Unregulating the telcos will mean prices go up and service goes down.
Gasoline and diesel _are_ high energy density fuels, from both energy/volume and energy/weight perspective. That is what makes them good fuels.
And you'll have to remove that metal-oxide coil (with a 10% increase in weight), and replace it with a metal coil, on every fill up.
Sounds dreadfully impractical. How much water would you need to carry, as well?
Sigh.
So much misinformation, so little time.
Apple introduced Macintosh computers based on the 68030 in 1988 (Mac IIx, Mac IIcx). Compaq introduced the 386 series of Deskpro computers earlier, in 1987. Given that machines had a 3 or 4 year lifespan, End-of-lifed machines with MMUs were available in 1991, when Linux was introduced.
Too much thrust from the SRB venting sideways and the damn thing starts to turn. If it turns enough, then you get aerodynamic loading where it wasn't designed to be; that could be enough to cause damage to the vehicle. Possibly causing the LOX/LH2 tanks on the upper stage to collapse. Which leads to an explosion.
Would the SRB motor nozzle be gimballed? How much could it steer? With Challenger, there were instrumentation traces showing that the SSMEs were at maximum gimbal keeping the machine on course before the external tank collapsed. Would someone watch that data stream and think "why are the rocket nozzles pointing that far sideways to keep the ship on course?" Would that person have the authority to scrub the mission by hitting the "fire escape rocket" button?
Would the Space Shuttle Main Engines (one on crew rocket; five on cargo) be reusable? Do they get them down, or let them burn up in the air? 5 shuttles * 3 engines per shuttle + spares equals how many? But if you throw the engine away after each flight, how many do you need to build?
Yes, Buran was a copy of the shuttle. It flew a test flight or two, and was then scrapped. It never carried passengers.
Why, oh why, oh why doesn't Apple offer an 1080 HD capable iMac? This is for the living room, right? Apple's 16:10 ratio would be a 1920x1200 display to show High Definition. Instead, buyers get to choose between 1440x900 (17" display), or 1680x1050 (19").
The machines specs are nice enough: 1.9 or 2.1 GHz 64-bit G5, 512 MB RAM, built-in VGA camera (640x480), 802.11g wireless networking, gigabit ethernet, Radeon X600 Pro or XT with 128 MB on PCI-Express. 160 or 250 GB SATA HD. Slot-loading 8x SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW). No Modem. $1299 or $1699.
I think I'm still looking for a machine with the same power as an iMac in a shoe-box sized case with no display. Sitting next to my Linux box, with a KVM switch.
Alan Shephard's sub-orbital hop, which is what SpaceShipOne managed to replicate, was over 40 years ago.
The rocket contractors aren't in "this game" because it's a game. They have their gravy train, and they send payloads into space with some frequency, so they understand how hard it is to do. They're not interested in playing games.
Aircraft on autopilot are out of range of birds...
I would be more than willing to let the machines drive me around for the parts of my journey that were on limited-access, multi-lane highways that had the appropriate infrastructure for the machines. I travel (mostly) to get places, and if I can get there without the boring bits demanding my attention (and consequent risks if my attention wanders), so much the better.
The choice of conditions reduces the problem space. I don't need to trust my car to do the right thing when a kid chases a ball out into the highway; it won't happen (unless there's a breakdown, and then the machine alerts me, following traffic, and slows down, yadda yadda yadda). Likewise, oncoming traffic. Blind curves... won't be there. Engineered for 70 mph, and going 70 mph. The robot won't have to decide whether the grade is too steep.
Sudden onset of poor driving conditions would be the hardest engineering and safety challenge.
When the car gets to the off ramp, I am rested and ready to do the driving again.
Given two theories of _equal_predictive_power_, the simpler one is to be preferred.
Comparing a simple theory that makes incorrect predictions, and a complex one that makes correct predictions, the complex one wins. Because it gets the right answer.
The universe is expanding. Has been expanind (in the minds of astronomers, at least) since Hubble's observations let him convince the rest of the astronomers.
An interesting question is "is the rate of expansion increasing or decreasing?" GR (even classical Newtonian gravitation) suggests that the expansion rate should be slowing. Observations of Type-I SuperNovae over the last decade or so suggest that they are brighter than we would expect if the expansion were slowing. This brightness is usually taken to indicate that they are closer than we think they are. Which suggests that their recession rate was smaller in the past than we observe now. Which implies that recession rates are growing, which is to say the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Are the math problems you encounter tackling general relativity or elementary particle physics "simple"? If so, you must be a math god.
Vector Calculus stops an awful lot of people, and tensors some more. Yes, GR can be summarized by one elegant equation, but the meaning of the symbols in that equation are totally opaque to 99.9999% of the population. Is that "simple"?
And recall, the goal is "as simple as possible, but no simpler". Not just "simple".
It is worth noting that a new idea surpassing current thinking (and demoting current thinking to wrong, old ideas) is not arbitrary. It is not a matter of the old scientists dieing off.
It is a matter of new ideas (a) explaining all of the old observations and experimental results that supported the old theory, as well as (b) explaining observations and experimental results that the old theory could not.
I am not capable of reviewing the observations and redoing the math to verify whether GR by itself explains the observed rotation rates of distant galaxies. Over the next few months more qualified scientists will look at this and publish what they think. Dark matter may go the way of the luminiferous aether. Once it is gone, it is very unlikely to come back in its original form or for its original purpose.
I wonder if this analysis has an effect on the chain of inferences leading to the conclusion that the galactic expansion is accelerating.
High-end PC:
High-end PC: 640 KB RAM. No further expansion possible
LISA: 1 MB RAM, expandible to 2 MB.
High-end PC: One 360K floppy, one Hard Drive
LISA: Dual 860K floppies, 5 MB Hard Drive.
High-end PC/Hercules Graphics: 720x348 bin-mapped display (plus 80x25 chararcter)
LISA: 720x364 bit-mapped display
So congresscreatures simply charge $10,000 for each e-mail read. Paying for access is so 20th century.
If the free market actually worked for information, there would be no "Intellectual Property" laws creating this fiction that ideas can be owned.
The free market assignes a value where captured marginal costs equal captured marginal revenues. The marginal cost of an information product is too low to measure. The free market would make information free.
IP laws are an intervention in the free market, because in the judgement of politicians, the results of barring entry of competitors and providing monopoly profits to authors and inventors is good. Please don't pretend that the results of this intervention is the magic of the marketplace.
The Federal Trade Commission got Microsoft to agree that the "per processor" licensing agreement was in restraint of trade. No penalties for prior infractions, and by changing to the completely different but functionally identical "cliff pricing" managed to continue the illegal practice.