Yeah, you get more CO2, but CH4 is a 20 times more effective Greenhouse gas than CO2, so while it would be best to completely sequester the gas produced in this way, converting CH4 to CO2 is already a significant improvement over just dumping the CH4 in the atmosphere.
Actually, while the Earth's atmosphere does prevent the formation of the smallest craters, the main reason Earth has far fewer craters than Mars is that the Earth's surface is, on average, much much younger than Mars' surface. Most cratering occured very early in the existence of the solar system, and on Earth erosion and continental drift mean that practically nowhere on Earth can we find a surface that is as old as the early cratering periods. Even the oldest rocks on Earth (in locations such as Canada, South-Africa & Australia) may be old, but they were not always at the surface.
On Mars, there never was any real "rebuilding" of the surface at the scale of what happened on Earth (except for some volcanism, wind erosion and water erosion). This means Mars retains almost all the ancient craters which on Earth have long disappeared.
Now, besides that, Mars' atmosphere is only about 1% of Earth's, and as such, is also much less capable of slowing down meteoroids, so on Mars, craters can form which are considerably smaller than the smallest that can form on Earth, because meteoroids small enough to burn up in Earth's atmosphere would still reach the surface at orbital velocities on Mars.
So, basically, plate-tectonics, erosion and a bigger atmospheric shield are all reasons why Earth has far fewer craters than Mars.
Well, for one, comets are not spherical - and a comet's coma is not spherical due to gravity, which is almost non-existant from an object the size of a comet's nucleus... So we can scrap comets from your list.
The moon : wel just claiming the moon orbits the sun and the earth is going around it is nice for you, but that doesn't make it true... The center of gravity of the Earth-Moon system is *inside* the Earth and the Moon orbits the Earth. - So we can scrap the moon from your list...
Now, Jupiter and Saturn fall under "any mass of liquefied gas" since the majority of their mass consists of "liquefied gas"... Any "mass of liquefied gas" light enough to not be spherical under its own gravity is going to dissipate rather quickly in the solar system, so there are no such objects - no object, no problem.
The main "difficulty" of the definition above is that it would mean that the largest asteroid, Ceres, is actually a planet, since it is quite spherical due to its own gravity.
And since the center of gravity of the Pluto-Charon system falls somewhere in space between the two objects, I would be much more inclined to call Pluto-Charon a "Double Planet" rather than a "Planet+Moon".
I don't see many real problems concerning the definition above, it would work perfectly, the only "problem" it has is that we would have a few more planets, including a new one in the inner Solar System - which to me sounds like a perfect trade-off for a consistent scientific definition. (although there may be a gray zone between what is a "planet" and what is a "brown dwarf", although we could just hold "brown dwarf" to be a class of planets, just like we currently have "terrestrial planets", "gas giants" and "Ice Dwarves"...)
Actually, the view from the surface is surprisingly clear, see these shots made by the Russian Venera 13 lander. Apparently, the bottom kilometers of the atmosphere are actually transparant.
And the worst thing about this whole thing is that it isn't true!
While in 2003 Mars passed us closer then at any other time in the last 60.000 years, it passes us by pretty close every 15 and 17 years. The 2003 passage was a "whopping" 1% closer to us than the 1971 pass, and this year's pass at 43 million miles is not unusual at all, every 15-17 years there's at least one pass that is significantly closer than that, the 1988 pass being at 37 million miles - noticably further than 2003, but much closer than this year's passage.
So as usual, take main stream press accounts of science stuff with a very big grain of salt!
I've been using Mandrake / Mandriva linux for years now without having to do any of the things you mention...
Sure, on my own PC I've done all those things, but not because I needed to, but because I wanted to (same reason I've run Gentoo on that machine as well, an urge to learn stuff)
The wife's PC has gone through about 5 Mandrake/Mandriva releases now, and I don't think I've had to edit any config files on it yet, let alone compile stuff or "maintain complex version dependencies", whatever you want that to mean...
And it's not as if nobody *ever* needs to edit the registry on a Windows PC...
Personally, I think you're just repeating what you heard somebody else say, just to sound cool...
Did I say we *need* 14 servers? We've got so many because we are very geographically spread out, and servers can be cheaper than bandwidth...
The largest server manages about 1000 users, and the only reason it doesn't handle more is that it doesn't need to. With a bit of extra memory, it could probably handle considerably more users, but they are simply not there...
The main reason I listed our environment was to show that this system is handled by 1 Admin & 1 developer, to counter the implications made by the parent's remark.
You have 3 sites, we have about 100 sites... think about it...
And also, remember we're using Notes applications, don't even think about comparing what Exchange does to all that Notes can do....
Sorry, got a system with 3500 users on 14 x86-servers (no clusters) geographically spread out, with about 200 *different* applications outside e-mail.
One main administrator, a few local part-time ones who only do things like create new users.
One developer.
Works like a charm. For sure, the Notes UI is Idiosyncratic at best, extremely frustrating at its worst, but for the kind of things it does well, nothing comes close!
No, but you might just be the only person who hasn't noticed most of those processes aren't doing anything, which is something they can do quite fast even on a single-threaded machine...
SMT and CMT won't gain you anything if there's a single thread requiring 99% of CPU resources, and hundreds each requiring 0.001% of CPU Resources.
Ah, but the Sun generates its energy mostly from... Hydrogen fusion, so we're back to a hydrogen economy (although by that reasoning, we're already in a hydrogen economy, even the Uranium we're using in our nuclear power plants was originally formed in stars which started as big blobs of mostly hydrogen)
Wrong. Just think about it: The solar panels are used to split water into Hydrogen & Oxygen, the Hydrogen engine then recombines hydrogen & oxygen to produce energy. How much energy? Exactly the amount needed to split the water in the first place. SO even with 100% conversion efficiency (a physical impossibility) you need to get just as much energy from the solar panels as you later need to move the car. In reality, the conversion is way below 100%, so you need even more. Hydrogen on earth is nothing more than a special kind of "battery", it is used to "store" energy, not to create it out of thin air...
No they don't, that's Trademarks.
Trademarks can be renewed, and have to be defended.
Patents cannot be renewed, are valid for 21 years after issuing (in the US), and can be selectively defended without any fear of losing the patent.
Copyright also is valid for a time period (but that keeps on getting extended by Disney&Co's hired congresscritters) and also does not *have* to be defended to remain valid.
The most important defenses against patents are more patents (big companies give each other rights to use each other's patents, something Open Source cannot do) or finding some reason for a patent to be declared invalid, either by finding Prior Art or by showing that a Patent is "obvious to a person skilled in the field".
No matter what, getting a patent declared invalid is not cheap.
Sorry I'm a bit late, but you're the one missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you mix the RGB-channels spatially (as in regular projectors) or temporally, as in DLP.
Single chip DLP's *DO* mix RGB channels, only they don't mix them in space, but in time. The end result is the same, and any effects from this screen will be the same...
This screen is all about reflecting specific frequency-ranges, no matter what nonsense was written in the article about not reflecting ambient light...
saying "It does not need to be tuned to a specific frequency of white light" doesn't mean anything, as there's no such thing as a "frequency of white light", white light can only be obtained by mixing light in different frequencies in appropriate amounts, and the simplest way of doing so is by combining colour in red, green and blue frequencies.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you get more CO2, but CH4 is a 20 times more effective Greenhouse gas than CO2, so while it would be best to completely sequester the gas produced in this way, converting CH4 to CO2 is already a significant improvement over just dumping the CH4 in the atmosphere.
Actually, while the Earth's atmosphere does prevent the formation of the smallest craters, the main reason Earth has far fewer craters than Mars is that the Earth's surface is, on average, much much younger than Mars' surface. Most cratering occured very early in the existence of the solar system, and on Earth erosion and continental drift mean that practically nowhere on Earth can we find a surface that is as old as the early cratering periods. Even the oldest rocks on Earth (in locations such as Canada, South-Africa & Australia) may be old, but they were not always at the surface.
On Mars, there never was any real "rebuilding" of the surface at the scale of what happened on Earth (except for some volcanism, wind erosion and water erosion). This means Mars retains almost all the ancient craters which on Earth have long disappeared.
Now, besides that, Mars' atmosphere is only about 1% of Earth's, and as such, is also much less capable of slowing down meteoroids, so on Mars, craters can form which are considerably smaller than the smallest that can form on Earth, because meteoroids small enough to burn up in Earth's atmosphere would still reach the surface at orbital velocities on Mars.
So, basically, plate-tectonics, erosion and a bigger atmospheric shield are all reasons why Earth has far fewer craters than Mars.
Now all we need to now is how you pronounce "onomatopoeiaicize"...
Well, for one, comets are not spherical - and a comet's coma is not spherical due to gravity, which is almost non-existant from an object the size of a comet's nucleus... So we can scrap comets from your list.
The moon : wel just claiming the moon orbits the sun and the earth is going around it is nice for you, but that doesn't make it true... The center of gravity of the Earth-Moon system is *inside* the Earth and the Moon orbits the Earth. - So we can scrap the moon from your list...
Now, Jupiter and Saturn fall under "any mass of liquefied gas" since the majority of their mass consists of "liquefied gas"... Any "mass of liquefied gas" light enough to not be spherical under its own gravity is going to dissipate rather quickly in the solar system, so there are no such objects - no object, no problem.
The main "difficulty" of the definition above is that it would mean that the largest asteroid, Ceres, is actually a planet, since it is quite spherical due to its own gravity.
And since the center of gravity of the Pluto-Charon system falls somewhere in space between the two objects, I would be much more inclined to call Pluto-Charon a "Double Planet" rather than a "Planet+Moon".
I don't see many real problems concerning the definition above, it would work perfectly, the only "problem" it has is that we would have a few more planets, including a new one in the inner Solar System - which to me sounds like a perfect trade-off for a consistent scientific definition. (although there may be a gray zone between what is a "planet" and what is a "brown dwarf", although we could just hold "brown dwarf" to be a class of planets, just like we currently have "terrestrial planets", "gas giants" and "Ice Dwarves"...)
Actually, the view from the surface is surprisingly clear, see these shots made by the Russian Venera 13 lander. Apparently, the bottom kilometers of the atmosphere are actually transparant.
Nope, this is correct - the entire Southern hemisphere of Mars is a lot higher than the Northern hemisphere (several miles higher in average height)
Yeah, you are right. I mean, who would have figured that Pluto was male and Charon was male, while in fact... oh wait... Duh...
And the worst thing about this whole thing is that it isn't true!
While in 2003 Mars passed us closer then at any other time in the last 60.000 years, it passes us by pretty close every 15 and 17 years. The 2003 passage was a "whopping" 1% closer to us than the 1971 pass, and this year's pass at 43 million miles is not unusual at all, every 15-17 years there's at least one pass that is significantly closer than that, the 1988 pass being at 37 million miles - noticably further than 2003, but much closer than this year's passage.
So as usual, take main stream press accounts of science stuff with a very big grain of salt!
And in Europe it gets worse, with all the different languages... SOA in Dutch means STD (as in AIDS, Syphillis and the like :)
The eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes!
I've been using Mandrake / Mandriva linux for years now without having to do any of the things you mention...
Sure, on my own PC I've done all those things, but not because I needed to, but because I wanted to (same reason I've run Gentoo on that machine as well, an urge to learn stuff)
The wife's PC has gone through about 5 Mandrake/Mandriva releases now, and I don't think I've had to edit any config files on it yet, let alone compile stuff or "maintain complex version dependencies", whatever you want that to mean...
And it's not as if nobody *ever* needs to edit the registry on a Windows PC...
Personally, I think you're just repeating what you heard somebody else say, just to sound cool...
Gates, Windows - both are ways of getting through a wall...
Actually, this is incorrect:/ releases/1999/14/
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive
Hubble doesn't usually image the moon because imaging time is spent better on other targets.
It is true that it can't image the sun for fear of damaging the internal stuff, but then the sun is much, much, much brighter than the moon.
I hear ya, Brother! (I'm in exactly the same situation)
Did I say we *need* 14 servers? We've got so many because we are very geographically spread out, and servers can be cheaper than bandwidth...
The largest server manages about 1000 users, and the only reason it doesn't handle more is that it doesn't need to. With a bit of extra memory, it could probably handle considerably more users, but they are simply not there...
The main reason I listed our environment was to show that this system is handled by 1 Admin & 1 developer, to counter the implications made by the parent's remark.
You have 3 sites, we have about 100 sites... think about it...
And also, remember we're using Notes applications, don't even think about comparing what Exchange does to all that Notes can do....
Sorry, got a system with 3500 users on 14 x86-servers (no clusters) geographically spread out, with about 200 *different* applications outside e-mail.
One main administrator, a few local part-time ones who only do things like create new users.
One developer.
Works like a charm. For sure, the Notes UI is Idiosyncratic at best, extremely frustrating at its worst, but for the kind of things it does well, nothing comes close!
No, but you might just be the only person who hasn't noticed most of those processes aren't doing anything, which is something they can do quite fast even on a single-threaded machine...
SMT and CMT won't gain you anything if there's a single thread requiring 99% of CPU resources, and hundreds each requiring 0.001% of CPU Resources.
Make it both, or even beter, make it irrational...
Don't forget the tugging of braids, that's major, that is...
Ah, but the Sun generates its energy mostly from... Hydrogen fusion, so we're back to a hydrogen economy (although by that reasoning, we're already in a hydrogen economy, even the Uranium we're using in our nuclear power plants was originally formed in stars which started as big blobs of mostly hydrogen)
Wrong. Just think about it:
The solar panels are used to split water into Hydrogen & Oxygen, the Hydrogen engine then recombines hydrogen & oxygen to produce energy. How much energy? Exactly the amount needed to split the water in the first place. SO even with 100% conversion efficiency (a physical impossibility) you need to get just as much energy from the solar panels as you later need to move the car. In reality, the conversion is way below 100%, so you need even more.
Hydrogen on earth is nothing more than a special kind of "battery", it is used to "store" energy, not to create it out of thin air...
Just pretend that in this case "YRO" stands for "Your Rights Off-line"
Strictly speaking : two miracles, verified by the Catholic Church as authentic...
No they don't, that's Trademarks. Trademarks can be renewed, and have to be defended.
Patents cannot be renewed, are valid for 21 years after issuing (in the US), and can be selectively defended without any fear of losing the patent.
Copyright also is valid for a time period (but that keeps on getting extended by Disney&Co's hired congresscritters) and also does not *have* to be defended to remain valid.
The most important defenses against patents are more patents (big companies give each other rights to use each other's patents, something Open Source cannot do) or finding some reason for a patent to be declared invalid, either by finding Prior Art or by showing that a Patent is "obvious to a person skilled in the field".
No matter what, getting a patent declared invalid is not cheap.
Sorry I'm a bit late, but you're the one missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you mix the RGB-channels spatially (as in regular projectors) or temporally, as in DLP.
Single chip DLP's *DO* mix RGB channels, only they don't mix them in space, but in time. The end result is the same, and any effects from this screen will be the same...
This screen is all about reflecting specific frequency-ranges, no matter what nonsense was written in the article about not reflecting ambient light...
saying "It does not need to be tuned to a specific frequency of white light" doesn't mean anything, as there's no such thing as a "frequency of white light", white light can only be obtained by mixing light in different frequencies in appropriate amounts, and the simplest way of doing so is by combining colour in red, green and blue frequencies.