Once science it settled by a majority of scientists, it should be illegal to question it or challenge it.
{Sarcasm} Certainly, just like once something is settled by a majority of the Priests of the local religion, it should be illegal to question it! {/Sarcasm}
Most would equate exploding with instantaneously without the explicit reference. However it is carnival in Brasil, so perhaps that slows things down?
A really large block of explosive does not all actualiy explode at once, so it starts to come apart before it is all consumed. That means that the real explosions would be much less powerful. What they mean is that they used the rough calculation that assumed it was instantanious.
The problem with your idea is that there is no "first" or "second" dimension, per se....
That is true (as far as we can see). Yet there may be no three dimensional universe, we may only see what we can understand. Just like a primitive tribe, living on the prarie, that has not conception of a third dimension even though we would say it was right there. We might be missing much of what is around us, in the same way!
I work every day with powers that no one can see, hear or feel. At least not directly. Yet they can and do kill people that are unbelievers, every day (just about).
Besides, there is some reason to think there are at least 12 dimensions, if not closer to 15! But what they might be is not clear at all...
There is also no reason to believe that there are only three "dimensions", however you define them. The "second" dimension changes everything compared to the first. The third dimension changes everything again. the fourth dimension makes things totally different again.
Each is completely unrecognizable if you only know the first ones, just try teaching kids about dimensions. There is no reason to think we could even recognize higher dimensions, they might have been right in front of us all of the time.
A lot of the very smallest objects seem to have no intrinsic properties that are non-mathmatical. Spin, colour, etc. It gets to a point where a mathematical abstraction is equivalent to the real thing. So is the real thing itself purely mathmatical? Interesting stuff, to be sure.
No, it's not purely mathmatical. But your eyes are not good enough to see the difference. Even with "enhancement"! 8-)
Conclusion: if the folklore tells that modern humans encountered the hobbits, they most likely did.
That does not seem like an accurate conclusion from your stories. A similar conclusion would be that the mountain in Japan had monsters, and there's no evidence of that....
You know as well as I do, that just because we don't have evidence that it is there, does not actually prove it does not exist. I really don't think they have done any detail searches of the surrounding area.
Of course, claiming it -is- there, without any evidence, can piss people off and waste a lot of time. But that's different.
... Did you really mean to talk about "archaic species" if they were close enough to interbreed and re-merge? I understand that there are lots of subtleties, but the concept of species as lines distinct enough not to interbreed was drilled into us pretty heavily at school...
Short answer: It was thought that they were separate species, so they wrote it up that way. Then they found out different, but the books were all printed the old way! Result, much wringing of hands and ignoring the problem... 8-)
... If the conventional cam/follower/valve stem arrangement can be made to require little or no adjustment, then surely a desmo system could also be developed further to reduce or eliminate adjustment.
I thought that was what the micro-computer was for? If it can be programmed to make the needed adjustments "on the fly", then it would only need to warn the driver if something failed. The engine computer does that with fuel mixture, and the modern cars work ok with that.
But that assumes that the control is not just open/close, but can shape the driving pulses, to the valves, as needed.
... I'm not an expert here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. One thing about solenoids is that they are either on or off or at least the times to actually activate the push on the valve to full open or release its force for full close are pretty short....
Note that the voice coil in a loudspeaker is basically a solenoid, and they don't have to be just on or off. In fact, they took the voice coil design to use in disk drives to move the read-write arm.
Considering that, at the forces and speeds in a car engine make the steel act like a cross between a tuning fork and a length of play-dough. I think they will need that level of control. But with modern micro-computers it might be made to work...
That is the delemma that we have always had. When you start you don't actually know what you will find, no matter how much everyone thinks so. So we build what we can, as generally as we can, and see what happens. That's why they always start small, but in that field we are at least somewhat past that.
Unfortunatly, people used to only working in areas where they can be sure of things expect to be sure of everything, even when no-one knows... 8-)
(Spoken by someone who has worked in fields where an accuracy of one part in ten to the 17th is "approximate".)
Screw the transparent aluminum. I want the software that allowed Scottie to type madly for about 14 seconds and completely define an entirely new molecular structure AND the means to manufacture it.
And, it ran on the computers of the time!
But I assumed, when I saw it, that he just called up a previously stored document...
When most humans cannot detect sarcasm, except in small in-groups where it is stylized and standardized, then it is useless to expect computers to do it. Unless of course, you have a mystical faith in the perfection of computers. Which some people do...
P.S., Never use sarcasm in internet communications, no-one will understand you. And they will just think you are a fool.
What people are trying to measure, and what they are actually detecting, can often be quite different. Looking for something else with the same equipment does not change the results, only their analysis of the data.
For true science, you should not decide what you are looking for until after you have the data, otherwise you will cause errors and bias. P.S., yes your professors were wrong... 8-)
As a society, we also seem to look down on people who take the more caution point of view, calling them "negative" or "not team players" when they don't agree with others' overly-optimistic timelines or outcomes.
That's why sometimes companies need to fail, instead of being bailed out.
... the NPRK would only launch a nuclear first strike as a form of ritual suicide. MAD still applies, even to nasty little third-world dictatorships...
Interesting thought... that Mutual Assured Destruction may have saved the world several times!
... If you read one article on each of twenty different sites, which is entirely plausible if you find articles through an aggregator such as reddit, SoylentNews, Slashdot, or the Twitter accounts you follow, how much will you have paid in total to set up these micropayment accounts?
Judging from some of the comments, not that many of the readers click through to the linked sites...
Question: if we click through to the linked site, does Slashdot get anything from that?
It's not a question of whether to have adds. It's that the site owners are selling add space without checking what they are letting on their website. It is their website and they are reponsible for what shows there. Selling a link and saying it is not their fault is not enough, when we are getting abusive or even malicious adds.
Blocking adds is our right, blocking adblockers is their right. But it's better to find a way to exclude malicious and dangerous adds.
In short, clean up your websites or we will clean them for you. If you block us then nobody gets anything.
And I am willing to subscribe to some sites I like, as long as the cost is not too high. This whole thing started because there was not convenient way to pay, but there is now.
Slashdot Mirror
Once science it settled by a majority of scientists, it should be illegal to question it or challenge it.
{Sarcasm} Certainly, just like once something is settled by a majority of the Priests of the local religion, it should be illegal to question it! {/Sarcasm}
Most would equate exploding with instantaneously without the explicit reference. However it is carnival in Brasil, so perhaps that slows things down?
A really large block of explosive does not all actualiy explode at once, so it starts to come apart before it is all consumed. That means that the real explosions would be much less powerful. What they mean is that they used the rough calculation that assumed it was instantanious.
The problem with your idea is that there is no "first" or "second" dimension, per se. ...
That is true (as far as we can see). Yet there may be no three dimensional universe, we may only see what we can understand. Just like a primitive tribe, living on the prarie, that has not conception of a third dimension even though we would say it was right there. We might be missing much of what is around us, in the same way!
I work every day with powers that no one can see, hear or feel. At least not directly. Yet they can and do kill people that are unbelievers, every day (just about).
Besides, there is some reason to think there are at least 12 dimensions, if not closer to 15! But what they might be is not clear at all...
There is also no reason to believe that there are only three "dimensions", however you define them. The "second" dimension changes everything compared to the first. The third dimension changes everything again. the fourth dimension makes things totally different again.
Each is completely unrecognizable if you only know the first ones, just try teaching kids about dimensions. There is no reason to think we could even recognize higher dimensions, they might have been right in front of us all of the time.
A lot of the very smallest objects seem to have no intrinsic properties that are non-mathmatical. Spin, colour, etc. It gets to a point where a mathematical abstraction is equivalent to the real thing. So is the real thing itself purely mathmatical? Interesting stuff, to be sure.
No, it's not purely mathmatical. But your eyes are not good enough to see the difference. Even with "enhancement"! 8-)
would welcome a coating to prevent bug residue buildup.
Um ... it's called a face shield! 8-)
Card with chip is NOT the same as RFID
Bump this up, it's important!
Nice to see an unbiased summary on Slashdot for a change. (/sarcasm)
Thanks for marking the sarcasm! 8-)
Conclusion: if the folklore tells that modern humans encountered the hobbits, they most likely did.
That does not seem like an accurate conclusion from your stories. A similar conclusion would be that the mountain in Japan had monsters, and there's no evidence of that....
You know as well as I do, that just because we don't have evidence that it is there, does not actually prove it does not exist. I really don't think they have done any detail searches of the surrounding area.
Of course, claiming it -is- there, without any evidence, can piss people off and waste a lot of time. But that's different.
... Did you really mean to talk about "archaic species" if they were close enough to interbreed and re-merge? I understand that there are lots of subtleties, but the concept of species as lines distinct enough not to interbreed was drilled into us pretty heavily at school...
Short answer: It was thought that they were separate species, so they wrote it up that way. Then they found out different, but the books were all printed the old way! Result, much wringing of hands and ignoring the problem... 8-)
... If the conventional cam/follower/valve stem arrangement can be made to require little or no adjustment, then surely a desmo system could also be developed further to reduce or eliminate adjustment.
I thought that was what the micro-computer was for? If it can be programmed to make the needed adjustments "on the fly", then it would only need to warn the driver if something failed. The engine computer does that with fuel mixture, and the modern cars work ok with that.
But that assumes that the control is not just open/close, but can shape the driving pulses, to the valves, as needed.
... I'm not an expert here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. One thing about solenoids is that they are either on or off or at least the times to actually activate the push on the valve to full open or release its force for full close are pretty short. ...
Note that the voice coil in a loudspeaker is basically a solenoid, and they don't have to be just on or off. In fact, they took the voice coil design to use in disk drives to move the read-write arm.
Considering that, at the forces and speeds in a car engine make the steel act like a cross between a tuning fork and a length of play-dough. I think they will need that level of control. But with modern micro-computers it might be made to work...
That is the delemma that we have always had. When you start you don't actually know what you will find, no matter how much everyone thinks so. So we build what we can, as generally as we can, and see what happens. That's why they always start small, but in that field we are at least somewhat past that.
Unfortunatly, people used to only working in areas where they can be sure of things expect to be sure of everything, even when no-one knows... 8-)
(Spoken by someone who has worked in fields where an accuracy of one part in ten to the 17th is "approximate".)
Screw the transparent aluminum. I want the software that allowed Scottie to type madly for about 14 seconds and completely define an entirely new molecular structure AND the means to manufacture it.
And, it ran on the computers of the time!
But I assumed, when I saw it, that he just called up a previously stored document...
He seemed to not like a lot of his own work: ...
He got the math right (mostly), but he didn't like some of the answers that he got. That happens a lot, with honest people.
It means that there is more to learn.
It's also a sign that he didn't fudge the results! 8-)
When most humans cannot detect sarcasm, except in small in-groups where it is stylized and standardized, then it is useless to expect computers to do it.
Unless of course, you have a mystical faith in the perfection of computers. Which some people do...
P.S., Never use sarcasm in internet communications, no-one will understand you. And they will just think you are a fool.
What people are trying to measure, and what they are actually detecting, can often be quite different.
Looking for something else with the same equipment does not change the results, only their analysis of the data.
For true science, you should not decide what you are looking for until after you have the data, otherwise you will cause errors and bias.
P.S., yes your professors were wrong... 8-)
As a society, we also seem to look down on people who take the more caution point of view, calling them "negative" or "not team players" when they don't agree with others' overly-optimistic timelines or outcomes.
That's why sometimes companies need to fail, instead of being bailed out.
"If Engineers built buildings the way Programmers write programs, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization!"
... the NPRK would only launch a nuclear first strike as a form of ritual suicide. MAD still applies, even to nasty little third-world dictatorships ...
Interesting thought... that Mutual Assured Destruction may have saved the world several times!
There should be a law against people that say "there should be a law ..." ! 8-)
... If you read one article on each of twenty different sites, which is entirely plausible if you find articles through an aggregator such as reddit, SoylentNews, Slashdot, or the Twitter accounts you follow, how much will you have paid in total to set up these micropayment accounts?
Judging from some of the comments, not that many of the readers click through to the linked sites...
Question: if we click through to the linked site, does Slashdot get anything from that?
It's not a question of whether to have adds. It's that the site owners are selling add space without checking what they are letting on their website. It is their website and they are reponsible for what shows there. Selling a link and saying it is not their fault is not enough, when we are getting abusive or even malicious adds.
Blocking adds is our right, blocking adblockers is their right. But it's better to find a way to exclude malicious and dangerous adds.
In short, clean up your websites or we will clean them for you. If you block us then nobody gets anything.
And I am willing to subscribe to some sites I like, as long as the cost is not too high. This whole thing started because there was not convenient way to pay, but there is now.
The cake is a lie!
That is deeper than it first appears... 8-) 8-(
If that person was a "social engineer", then housebreaking would make you an Architect! 8-)
But the news reporters make up words all of the time...