Little thing to note about Lagrange points... They are gravitational wells. They collect debre because the gravity in the system drags them there. it doesn't take any extra fuel to reach these, once you're caught in the correct gravitational field (as this satallite is), and as to why bother? they can't control the satallite, that's the core problem. it's drifting. info
It's supposed to hit the Earth - Sun Lagrange point. I'm not quite sure which L point this is, but some points are like the top of the hill. it doesn't take much to stay still on this point, but if you're off center, you'll slowly start rolling away. Other points are like the trough of a valley. When you're in, you sit there unless something pushes you out. My assumption, given what I've read, is this is more like the graviational valley.
What no one really seems to be talking about is what happened to the blow out preventor?
That is the huge question and no one really seems to be asking.
Actually, people have asked, and they believe they have an answer:
The device attempted to crush the pipe to cut off the leak. Unfortunately, parts of the drilling apparatus, called the drill string, were running inside the pipe at that point, so the pipe couldn't be crimped off neatly. But a BP spokesman said the drill string did not stop the blowout preventer from working. BP is now talking about chopping off the jammed blowout preventer and installing a new one.
Source All the more reason to love NPR's reporting.
Sadly when I first read this, I figured 'neutrinosaurus' wasn't such a strange name for a quark. I mean, hell, strange is already one.
Speaking of the wonderfully named quarks. My physicist friend got married last year, and you can be sure, we brought up "if his wife was a quark, would she be a top quark or a bottom quark"? The man laughed at that joke, as only a supremely drunk physicist could.
sorry I can't offer more sources than this (heading into work shortly), but it's not unheard of for someone to miss a red light and cause an accident because of a cell phone call:
I've also heard that some areas do increase the severity of the punishment if it's determined someone's on a cell phone when the accident occured. Driving a car is a privilage, and to be licensed you are agreeing to stay in full control of an exceptionally deadly object. It makes sense that if you are willfully ignoring your duty to stay vigilant behind the wheel, you should take more responsibility if something goes wrong.
Admittedly I drive on the cell phone a decent amount. I'd hate to get punished more for the cell phone in case of an accident, but the logic makes sense, and I can't deny it's distracting.
you can't because the botnets are created illegally. There are "botnets" created for scientific use, such as folding@home, but these do not spread on their own and are completely opt in (and, more importantly, opt out). Perhaps someone should create an opt in cloud system where users who provide cpu power are given a cut of the profit from the distributed super computer use. Perhaps someone already has, as I'm not an expert on these things. I would doubt that the income from this would offset the increased electrical bills, though.
Dear sir,
Please rephrase your comment and magically watch as you move from -1 flame bait to insightful. watch and learn:
"The issue with sex in America comes partially from America's Christian history. Many of our laws stem loosely from the laws written in the bible, and as such, there are many laws restricting sex and sexual expression. As we grow in maturity as a country, we now feel that some of these laws are outdated, and should be removed. However, there are still smaller sexually conservative groups that will put forth the effort to control what other people do in (or more importantly out of) bed."
Notice the lack of words like "Taliban" and claims of "desert superstition". Follow my lead and see your karma improve today!
Also, the doodles may also be related to what is actually being taught and may be of use. I have many a drawing of monkeys attached to strings, in trees being shot by a hunter at X angle below. it's a lesson in motion, partially elastic colisions and pendular motion.
In all seriousness, the AC has a point. given 10% of anythingand extrapolating the other 90% is a difficult task at best. This is assuming that the 10% are the most important parts. As with all low res images, any subtleties will be lost.
It's not the view. One could have said that "The gates foundation may not be as noble as they seem, as they have patents for the vaccines and financial stake in the selling of these drugs" and then provided links of proof. But when you start off your post with
"Yeah right, because Gates does it out of their hearts... you're an idiot if you think that."
you are effectively trolling. Common notes to look for - Lack of supporting information for the claims, calling other people names.
Find me a sport these days without doping/steroids scandals? Off the top of my head, I can think of major scandals involving cycling, baseball, swimming, track and field, and even horse racing.
when we push the limits of sports the way we do, most professional athletes will do everything in their power to succeed. chances are, if they aren't taking anything illegal to the sport, they are using a substance that may very well become illegal in the future. Moral reasons aside, if a certain combination of chemicals will result in a 4% increase in speed/stamina/power, and these chemicals are not explicitly banned, why wouldn't you take them?
I know what you're saying here, and I'm trying to think up legal reasoning. I think it's because the act is done. In attempted murder, the act is not completed, where as in buying drugs that end up being dishwasher soap, the transaction was made, the intent was clear, the action was completed.
if he was trying to buy pot from someone who was supposed to be selling him pot, then sure. Nothing against pot, but he was attempting to break a law. it doesn't make him any less guilty for doing it poorly.
to be honest, when I'm logged in, I'm at -1. I find it annoying to read some of the comments I see, but at least when i'm moderating I try to be impartial. I hate the moments when I see that I'm actually wrong about something (because I hate being wrong), but if it's a valid point, i'll mod it up.
I now use google news and tailored it according to my points of interest, and I get the luxury of actually ignoring the rest as I DON'T CARE. I also get to make my own opinion.
I think this answers the question with a solid "YES!" By putting blinders on you at best lose any concept of the broad effect that some events have on the rest of the world (even influencing those news events you may care about). At worst, you're missing out on half the argument because you don't care to acknowledge anything other than what you care to see.
"A specialist is someone who knows more and more things on less and less subjects"
So I am now a specialist news consumer.
No, you're quite possibly an idiot, because if you're only reading opinions that you care to read, you're only getting a partial story. That's not an expert, that's someone who thinks they know a lot more than they do. Pull your head out of the sand.
possibly because if you take the number of failures that it has that have resulted in loss of crew, it's actually safer in the event of a fuck up.
fun with statistics, no doubt, but i do recall one of the soyuz capsules falling to earth with a ballistic trajectory and landing without serious injury to the crew.
I can recall trashing an email and resume from a mrsuperflyprofessional@(something).com. In most lines of work, you are selling yourself along with the product, and if you don't take the time clean up how you present yourself, then why should a business give you a chance to represent them?
you're missing the point. this is more of a lens. It redirects light around the object. now, how fluidly it does this has yet to be seen, but any light that originates behind the object will be bent in a way that it never strikes the object. I'm not sure how this would look in real life, but given a mathmatically perfect lens, the object would bend all light around it so that it comes out exactly on the other side. In that case, as far as our sense of sight is concerned, the object would not exist
for the record, bullets in real life are not hitscan. also, hitting a moving target is quite a bit harder when you have to take into account things like wind speed and, probably, your inability to aim as well as you think.
When an asteroid hits earth, it does not matter where it hits, we are all dead. Everything small enough to survive it, is called a meteor. Well, strictly speaking it is not correct.
No, strictly speaking, this is completely incorrect. Asteroid covers any small orbitting body that is larger than 10 meters. It's not even a well defined term, but semantics aside, a 10 meter object could do a lot of damage to a city but would not come close to ending life on earth. In fact, according to estimates on the tunguska event, a 10 meter object could cause a 20 kiloton explosion. This will hardly end all life as you describe. I would imagine in most scenarios, the city would be evacuated, but if we had the technology to detroy/redirect the asteroid, we would do so to avoid the massive loss of life, property, and infrastructure of the region where the asteroid would hit.
It'll be an international, outerspace game of hot potato. I can guarantee you that if that asteroid is headed towards the US, we'll find a way to knock it off course. Then, say if it's headed towards Russia, I'm sure they'll try to pass it along to. Eventually, it'll be targeted towards an area that is either uninhabited, or too poor to play the game.
Slashdot Mirror
... Dinosaurs kill man
Women inherit the earth.
Little thing to note about Lagrange points... They are gravitational wells. They collect debre because the gravity in the system drags them there. it doesn't take any extra fuel to reach these, once you're caught in the correct gravitational field (as this satallite is), and as to why bother? they can't control the satallite, that's the core problem. it's drifting. info
It's supposed to hit the Earth - Sun Lagrange point. I'm not quite sure which L point this is, but some points are like the top of the hill. it doesn't take much to stay still on this point, but if you're off center, you'll slowly start rolling away. Other points are like the trough of a valley. When you're in, you sit there unless something pushes you out. My assumption, given what I've read, is this is more like the graviational valley.
What no one really seems to be talking about is what happened to the blow out preventor? That is the huge question and no one really seems to be asking.
Actually, people have asked, and they believe they have an answer:
The device attempted to crush the pipe to cut off the leak. Unfortunately, parts of the drilling apparatus, called the drill string, were running inside the pipe at that point, so the pipe couldn't be crimped off neatly. But a BP spokesman said the drill string did not stop the blowout preventer from working. BP is now talking about chopping off the jammed blowout preventer and installing a new one.
Source All the more reason to love NPR's reporting.
Sadly when I first read this, I figured 'neutrinosaurus' wasn't such a strange name for a quark. I mean, hell, strange is already one.
Speaking of the wonderfully named quarks. My physicist friend got married last year, and you can be sure, we brought up "if his wife was a quark, would she be a top quark or a bottom quark"? The man laughed at that joke, as only a supremely drunk physicist could.
sorry I can't offer more sources than this (heading into work shortly), but it's not unheard of for someone to miss a red light and cause an accident because of a cell phone call:
http://www.seriousaccidents.com/accident-blog/car-technology-accident-blog/cell-phones-car-accidents-part-5-call-of-death/
http://www.brentadams.com/blog/report-says-28-percent-of-accidents-caused-by-cell-phone-usage.cfmhttp://www.brentadams.com/blog/report-says-28-percent-of-accidents-caused-by-cell-phone-usage.cfm
I've also heard that some areas do increase the severity of the punishment if it's determined someone's on a cell phone when the accident occured. Driving a car is a privilage, and to be licensed you are agreeing to stay in full control of an exceptionally deadly object. It makes sense that if you are willfully ignoring your duty to stay vigilant behind the wheel, you should take more responsibility if something goes wrong.
Admittedly I drive on the cell phone a decent amount. I'd hate to get punished more for the cell phone in case of an accident, but the logic makes sense, and I can't deny it's distracting.
Where can I rent this botnet legally?
you can't because the botnets are created illegally. There are "botnets" created for scientific use, such as folding@home, but these do not spread on their own and are completely opt in (and, more importantly, opt out). Perhaps someone should create an opt in cloud system where users who provide cpu power are given a cut of the profit from the distributed super computer use. Perhaps someone already has, as I'm not an expert on these things. I would doubt that the income from this would offset the increased electrical bills, though.
Dear sir, Please rephrase your comment and magically watch as you move from -1 flame bait to insightful. watch and learn: "The issue with sex in America comes partially from America's Christian history. Many of our laws stem loosely from the laws written in the bible, and as such, there are many laws restricting sex and sexual expression. As we grow in maturity as a country, we now feel that some of these laws are outdated, and should be removed. However, there are still smaller sexually conservative groups that will put forth the effort to control what other people do in (or more importantly out of) bed." Notice the lack of words like "Taliban" and claims of "desert superstition". Follow my lead and see your karma improve today!
I went to georgia tech. All classes needed more coeds
Also, the doodles may also be related to what is actually being taught and may be of use. I have many a drawing of monkeys attached to strings, in trees being shot by a hunter at X angle below. it's a lesson in motion, partially elastic colisions and pendular motion.
Glen Beck, is that you!?
In all seriousness, the AC has a point. given 10% of anythingand extrapolating the other 90% is a difficult task at best. This is assuming that the 10% are the most important parts. As with all low res images, any subtleties will be lost.
Please take the plunge and get added informative points by providing supporting information to this claim. Otherwise, your argument is non-existant.
"Yeah right, because Gates does it out of their hearts... you're an idiot if you think that."
you are effectively trolling. Common notes to look for - Lack of supporting information for the claims, calling other people names.
Find me a sport these days without doping/steroids scandals? Off the top of my head, I can think of major scandals involving cycling, baseball, swimming, track and field, and even horse racing.
when we push the limits of sports the way we do, most professional athletes will do everything in their power to succeed. chances are, if they aren't taking anything illegal to the sport, they are using a substance that may very well become illegal in the future. Moral reasons aside, if a certain combination of chemicals will result in a 4% increase in speed/stamina/power, and these chemicals are not explicitly banned, why wouldn't you take them?
I know what you're saying here, and I'm trying to think up legal reasoning. I think it's because the act is done. In attempted murder, the act is not completed, where as in buying drugs that end up being dishwasher soap, the transaction was made, the intent was clear, the action was completed.
if he was trying to buy pot from someone who was supposed to be selling him pot, then sure. Nothing against pot, but he was attempting to break a law. it doesn't make him any less guilty for doing it poorly.
to be honest, when I'm logged in, I'm at -1. I find it annoying to read some of the comments I see, but at least when i'm moderating I try to be impartial. I hate the moments when I see that I'm actually wrong about something (because I hate being wrong), but if it's a valid point, i'll mod it up.
I now use google news and tailored it according to my points of interest, and I get the luxury of actually ignoring the rest as I DON'T CARE. I also get to make my own opinion.
I think this answers the question with a solid "YES!" By putting blinders on you at best lose any concept of the broad effect that some events have on the rest of the world (even influencing those news events you may care about). At worst, you're missing out on half the argument because you don't care to acknowledge anything other than what you care to see.
"A specialist is someone who knows more and more things on less and less subjects" So I am now a specialist news consumer.
No, you're quite possibly an idiot, because if you're only reading opinions that you care to read, you're only getting a partial story. That's not an expert, that's someone who thinks they know a lot more than they do. Pull your head out of the sand.
possibly because if you take the number of failures that it has that have resulted in loss of crew, it's actually safer in the event of a fuck up. fun with statistics, no doubt, but i do recall one of the soyuz capsules falling to earth with a ballistic trajectory and landing without serious injury to the crew.
I can recall trashing an email and resume from a mrsuperflyprofessional@(something).com. In most lines of work, you are selling yourself along with the product, and if you don't take the time clean up how you present yourself, then why should a business give you a chance to represent them?
you're missing the point. this is more of a lens. It redirects light around the object. now, how fluidly it does this has yet to be seen, but any light that originates behind the object will be bent in a way that it never strikes the object. I'm not sure how this would look in real life, but given a mathmatically perfect lens, the object would bend all light around it so that it comes out exactly on the other side. In that case, as far as our sense of sight is concerned, the object would not exist
for the record, bullets in real life are not hitscan. also, hitting a moving target is quite a bit harder when you have to take into account things like wind speed and, probably, your inability to aim as well as you think.
When an asteroid hits earth, it does not matter where it hits, we are all dead. Everything small enough to survive it, is called a meteor. Well, strictly speaking it is not correct.
No, strictly speaking, this is completely incorrect. Asteroid covers any small orbitting body that is larger than 10 meters. It's not even a well defined term, but semantics aside, a 10 meter object could do a lot of damage to a city but would not come close to ending life on earth. In fact, according to estimates on the tunguska event, a 10 meter object could cause a 20 kiloton explosion. This will hardly end all life as you describe. I would imagine in most scenarios, the city would be evacuated, but if we had the technology to detroy/redirect the asteroid, we would do so to avoid the massive loss of life, property, and infrastructure of the region where the asteroid would hit.
It'll be an international, outerspace game of hot potato. I can guarantee you that if that asteroid is headed towards the US, we'll find a way to knock it off course. Then, say if it's headed towards Russia, I'm sure they'll try to pass it along to. Eventually, it'll be targeted towards an area that is either uninhabited, or too poor to play the game.