There is still "80s" sounding music being created now. In fact, I am listening to my Modern 80s playlist on iTunes now. There are a lot of bands out there today that are doing a very good job of writing songs that would have been right at home in 1983. Music is constantly changing and reinventing itself (although you would never know it from listing to most of the RIAA pablum), so there is alway new and interesting music to discover, even if you are primarily interested in nostalgia, like the music of the 80s.
You are probably right, but as long as the laws remain on the books some of these people are going to get the occasional very nasty surprise when they find out, the hard way, that copyright really does exist and really does affect them. Five years ago I naïvely thought that there would be a huge backlash against the RIAA lawsuits, and that would force a revision of the laws involved. It never happened, and now I am not convinced that it will ever happen.
To make matters worse even the five English vowels have different pronunciations in Danish, and the distinction between E and I is very subtle, and can be hard for an English speaker to reproduce. In general Danish pronunciations can be quite hard for an English speaker. When I was living there I found it far easier to read and write Danish than to speak it. It did not help that essentially every adult under the age of about 50 is fluent in English, so when I tried to practice speaking Danish they tended to just switch to English.
It is more like NASA-speak for we do not have any cool publicity pictures yet, but we need to say something so that the twits of the world don't accuse us of sitting on the data.
It is because companies like SpaceX and Scaled Composites can draw on decades of research, which was done by NASA and paid for by the US government, when they design their spacecrafts. It is significantly cheaper to do something after someone else has already done it.
The critical finding of the Augustine commission was that NASA is severely underfunded for doing manned spaceflight. If the US wants a human presence in space beyond low Earth orbit we need to be willing the pay the real cost of sending people beyond low Earth orbit. Until that happens any visits to a comet or a Legrange point, or anywhere else further away than the ISS are going to remain a pipe dream, unless if you happen to be Chinese.
You are right, it is General Relativity. My brain transposed the two theories for some reason, probably because I posted before having my morning cup of tea.
When you write a book the content belongs to you, but you do not have the ability to recall and erase every copy of that book in print. Why should it be any different for electronic publishing, such as Twitter?
It is not an either-or situation. We can do both. Or, more accurately, we can pay for a robust space programme and not have any significant change in our ability to solve problems here on Earth. The amount of money that the US currently spends on NASA is about 0.5% of the US federal budget (less if you include off-book expenses). Bumping up NASA's funding (or pumping the equivalent amount into private space concerns) enough to do some of the Buck Rogers whiz-bang stuff would only cost us roughly an extra five billion dollars a year. That would barely be noticeable compared to the amount needed to fix the US highway infrastructure, or bring public transit up to a civilized level or solve the food distribution problem in Africa. Poverty rates, for example, did not drop when NASA's funding was dramatically cut after the Apollo programme ended. Stopping space exploration will not have any affect on solving earthly problems.
No, it is not. Americans do not like to take stupid risks, but we are willing to take significant risks if the rewards are high enough. There is a 1% chance that your or I will die in a car crash of some kind, yet we still drive most distances over a couple of hundred yards. We willingly do high-risk jobs, like police work, often for very little pay. Many people take part in very risky recreational activities. Motorcycles are very popular (and highly lethal for new riders). No, Americans are not risk adverse at all.
If Space-X has an early fatal crash, say a Falcon explodes during one of the first manned Dragon flights, that will probably be the end of Space-X as a commercial launch company. Private space flight is being sold as the panacea to all of the problems with manned space flight, but so far no private firm has demonstrated that they can put a person in orbit and return him safely. It would be interesting to see risk analyses on some of these flight systems.
Cell phones operate at different frequencies and different power levels than the apparatus used in this experiment, so the lack of adverse effects on the mice does not really say anything about the effects of a cell phone on mice (or humans).
Slashdot Mirror
This appears to be some new meaning of the word "ruined" that I was previously unfamiliar with.
Thanks a lot! I have been trying to forget that abomination for the past four years. Four years of drinking is now completely wasted.
There is still "80s" sounding music being created now. In fact, I am listening to my Modern 80s playlist on iTunes now. There are a lot of bands out there today that are doing a very good job of writing songs that would have been right at home in 1983. Music is constantly changing and reinventing itself (although you would never know it from listing to most of the RIAA pablum), so there is alway new and interesting music to discover, even if you are primarily interested in nostalgia, like the music of the 80s.
You are probably right, but as long as the laws remain on the books some of these people are going to get the occasional very nasty surprise when they find out, the hard way, that copyright really does exist and really does affect them. Five years ago I naïvely thought that there would be a huge backlash against the RIAA lawsuits, and that would force a revision of the laws involved. It never happened, and now I am not convinced that it will ever happen.
I would start with sending the people who pull up and stop in the middle of crosswalks, then go with the RIAA lawyers.
Only if you want them to arrive on orbit as people paste. The G-forces in a cannon launch would be very high.
Oh where, oh where are my mod points when I need them.
To make matters worse even the five English vowels have different pronunciations in Danish, and the distinction between E and I is very subtle, and can be hard for an English speaker to reproduce. In general Danish pronunciations can be quite hard for an English speaker. When I was living there I found it far easier to read and write Danish than to speak it. It did not help that essentially every adult under the age of about 50 is fluent in English, so when I tried to practice speaking Danish they tended to just switch to English.
It is more like NASA-speak for we do not have any cool publicity pictures yet, but we need to say something so that the twits of the world don't accuse us of sitting on the data.
It is because companies like SpaceX and Scaled Composites can draw on decades of research, which was done by NASA and paid for by the US government, when they design their spacecrafts. It is significantly cheaper to do something after someone else has already done it.
The critical finding of the Augustine commission was that NASA is severely underfunded for doing manned spaceflight. If the US wants a human presence in space beyond low Earth orbit we need to be willing the pay the real cost of sending people beyond low Earth orbit. Until that happens any visits to a comet or a Legrange point, or anywhere else further away than the ISS are going to remain a pipe dream, unless if you happen to be Chinese.
You are right, it is General Relativity. My brain transposed the two theories for some reason, probably because I posted before having my morning cup of tea.
This is a test of Special Relativity, not General Relativity.
No, "you can't win" is the first law of thermodynamics. The second law is: you can't break even. The third law is: you can't quit the game.
Any new fuel or power source for automobiles will be taxed to a similar extent as the current petrol taxes, so this is not really an issue.
This is essentially what petrol taxes are, and they have the added advantage of inversely scaling with a vehicle's fuel efficiency.
When you write a book the content belongs to you, but you do not have the ability to recall and erase every copy of that book in print. Why should it be any different for electronic publishing, such as Twitter?
Mice are omnivores. They will happily eat insects The Northern Grasshopper Mouse, for example, has a diet that consists almost totally of insects.
It is not an either-or situation. We can do both. Or, more accurately, we can pay for a robust space programme and not have any significant change in our ability to solve problems here on Earth. The amount of money that the US currently spends on NASA is about 0.5% of the US federal budget (less if you include off-book expenses). Bumping up NASA's funding (or pumping the equivalent amount into private space concerns) enough to do some of the Buck Rogers whiz-bang stuff would only cost us roughly an extra five billion dollars a year. That would barely be noticeable compared to the amount needed to fix the US highway infrastructure, or bring public transit up to a civilized level or solve the food distribution problem in Africa. Poverty rates, for example, did not drop when NASA's funding was dramatically cut after the Apollo programme ended. Stopping space exploration will not have any affect on solving earthly problems.
No, it is not. Americans do not like to take stupid risks, but we are willing to take significant risks if the rewards are high enough. There is a 1% chance that your or I will die in a car crash of some kind, yet we still drive most distances over a couple of hundred yards. We willingly do high-risk jobs, like police work, often for very little pay. Many people take part in very risky recreational activities. Motorcycles are very popular (and highly lethal for new riders). No, Americans are not risk adverse at all.
If Space-X has an early fatal crash, say a Falcon explodes during one of the first manned Dragon flights, that will probably be the end of Space-X as a commercial launch company. Private space flight is being sold as the panacea to all of the problems with manned space flight, but so far no private firm has demonstrated that they can put a person in orbit and return him safely. It would be interesting to see risk analyses on some of these flight systems.
I would rather see flying mice. Come to think of it, that is essentially what bats are, so nature beat us to it,
Cell phones operate at different frequencies and different power levels than the apparatus used in this experiment, so the lack of adverse effects on the mice does not really say anything about the effects of a cell phone on mice (or humans).
Just because someone is out to get you does not mean that you are paranoid.
It is ironic that a post defending a grammar nazi contains several grammatical errors.