You might not think that differential throttling of his servo valve is important, but clearly he does.
Also, extra elucidation on what the details is not always welcomed if you are a technical person trying to read fast. (Like, "get to the point!").
Your editorial on his "of course" is from the perspective of somebody who is not in the inside. He may be kicking himself for doing something else previously, or he is just emphasising a point that he may have been making all the time.
I am a technical person doing a technical job. I don't care if other people don't understand my writing as long as what I say is clear to the people who are genuinely interested in the details of my work. Some journals actually do not accept papers that are more than certain number of pages long, so you have to be concise and to the point. If one is interested enough and do not understand, then one would go and find it out for oneself, and learn something in the process.
I am a science person, and if you are interested in what I do, I will be more than happy to describe to you my research to whatever detail (or none) that you want. But when I write, it's a completely different matter : I write to bring a point across to someone who cares about the details not just the "Big picture" (for that you read NYT.)
And that's what Carmack is doing. Your insinuation that he is intentionally writing using jargon to make people feel like a retard is totally uncalled for.
>I'm sick of this. I'm about ready to move to some country that has smaller government and less governmental interference in my life. Anybody got any suggestions?
hehehe, we physics students have a nice time thinking about band names from physics jargon. OUr favourite is still "The Naked Singularity."
Btw, the naked singularity is a concept from general relativity : it is the point in spacetime where Einstein's equation blows up and makes no sense. All blackholes, mathematically, have singularities in the middle, but they are "hidden" behind the event horizon, so a guy who fall into the blackhole may see the singularity, but will never get out to tell his friends outside the black hole. A naked singularity is one that is not "hidden" by an event horizion.
There is a conjecture, called Cosmic Censorship that says that naked singularities do not exist in nature. It is not proven. ALso, Cosmic Censorship is a great name for a band too:)
stick in some forcefeedback hydraulics (like the ones in force feedback joysticks), and viola! AutoPr0nSeats available on Business Class seats for $499.95!
Man, I may fly business class if I can have them seats massage my buttocks for the 24 hour flights I have to take to get home....
Sticking is not the question. It is what form the kinetic energy of the comet is converted to (if it sticks then 100% of the kinetic energy has to go somewhere).
Imagine this scenario : stick a very large pole on earth, with one end of the pole out into space. Shoot the comet into that end of the pole. The comet sticks to the pole, but very little damage is done to earth although earth (with its pole) has just effectively gained the same amount of energy. It is just not in a destructive form.
>How? There have been similar impacts in the past, and the shuttles have come back fine, so would you have launched a highly dangerous rescue mission for those previous launches based on your "five second equation"?
Because the NASA people is guilty of not exercising "due diligence". If a 5-second equation tells you something is not right, then you go and figure out WHY your equation is not fitting with the experiments. Basically, they have a problem they did NOT understand, and they closed their eyes to it.
ISS and the shuttle are two things flying in space, they docked, nothing bad happened.
The thing is that for anything to be in orbit, it has to be at a very high velocity (about 7 km/sec for the shuttle orbit). If two orbits criss-crossed, say something going at inclination 60deg and the other at 30deg, then you can use pythagoras theorem to compute the relative velocity. That's about 10 km/sec, which is pretty high. A fleck of dust at that velocity will destroy a lot of things, because the energy imparted is mass x velocity^2. Squaring 10 km/sec gives you a very big number.
That's the lesson that NASA is learning. ANd I am dead surprised that they are just learning. Gawd, how could they have missed that? If they have thought about impacts and stuff, 1.7 POUNDS of stuff at any speed is BAD, however "fluffy" it is. THat's why comets hitting EARTH is a bad thing. Comets are fluffier than candyfloss, but their kinetic energy is what blows earth to bits. (Remember the movie Deep Impact? Destroying the comet so close to earth actually will do MORE damage to earth than letting hit earth, since it increases the efficiency of transferring the kinetic energy into heat energy. If they have let the comet hit earth as a whole, some of the energy may be used to "move earth" a little, i.e. increase the velocity of earth instead of changing it to destructive heat energy.)
I don't know why you are still arguing when we agree that Pu is dangerous. ( Unless you disagree, which then I think you have provided enough evidence yourself to contradict yourself.)
The other arguments about lifetimes, strontium etc are true facts, which does not support nor erode the argument that Pu is dangerous.
Pu is a dangerous substance. To argue otherwise it's just arguing for argument's sake.
Btw, I did lived for 3 years in the approach of a major airport, and worked for 1 year in the approach of another, thank you very much.(Damn, don't I hate personal attacks.)
Alpha particle, last i heard, is a high energy particle that can kill you if exposed to large doses.
People working in the WW2 bomb projects do not know of the risks (or does not care) so they were being stupid. Many finally died of cancer.If it is warm to the touch, then it must be radiating like mad.
The longer the half life has little to do with the danger it poses to you. According to your logic, U-234 (245000 yrs) and U-238 (4.47 Billion years) are as safe as plutonium, both by the way emit Alpha Particles in their decay. It is the amount of radiation that kills you,and if you have a lot of those who cares how slowly is the decay rate.
Alpha particles will not penetrate your skin, but you can inahle plutonium and it will then kill you.
Dumping tons of Plutonium into the atmosphere will spread it out, and there's a lot of atmosphere so I am not worried. But I'll like to see you live next to a ton of Plutonium. Do you believe enough in what you say to do that?
Hmmm, then some anti-cheating software for Online games such as Punkbuster for Q3A has a screenshot grab function (to detect wallhacks) makes it illegal?
The stupid researchers gave us a lousy computer, waaaaaaay outdated to do anything. For example, one of my concubine wants to play the game Quake3, but that damned thing does not even have a GUI! Pffft..
So what are we suppose to do? We did what any human would do : we shit on it. Because, adding pieces of shit to a piece of shit is not going to make it look any less bad than it already is.
Btw, I posted this using lynx and a stupid 14.4 modem that my resident science chimp had managed to hook together (Thanks Baba!). We tried for First Post, but some idiot beat us to it.
>is it likely that there is a vast quantity of dark matter resposible for the effects that we are seeing? absolutely -- our, up until now, undisputed theory suggests it, and it has served us well in so many ways that we have no reason to doubt it. is also possible that we may not be able to observe this matter due to the noise and insensitivity of our apparati? we would be naive to believe otherwise.
But DM has multiple problems at galactic scales, which is why people still entertain alternatives.
>You also don't appear to have considered those people (rationalists) who have faith in reason alone, is their faith warm because it's faith (-: the creed of sola rationa?:-) or bleak because it's aimed at reason? And how about those people who have reasoned their way to a particular belief?
Please supply proof (anecdotes don't count) of such an assertion.
>The second article I linked relies on selection-by-beaming for its logic
How so?
>Many scientists have faith in their intuition, and it doesn't matter in this example whether their faith is justified or not. Reason takes them thus far, and then they strike out in faith, not knowing whether their suspicions will bear fruit. And sometimes it's a bleak uncertainty of faith, too, unencouraged (or even hampered) by their workmates and peers.
NOw you are committing the same fallacy as the last one in my previous post : a personal attack, on the entire scientific community no less:).
>Many scientists have faith in their intuition, and it doesn't matter in this example whether their faith is justified or not. Reason takes them thus far, and then they strike out in faith, not knowing whether their suspicions will bear fruit. And sometimes it's a bleak uncertainty of faith, too, unencouraged (or even hampered) by their workmates and peers.
Please supply proof (anecdotes don't count) of such an assertion.
Slashdot Mirror
He is writing for a technical crowd.
You might not think that differential throttling of his servo valve is important, but clearly he does.
Also, extra elucidation on what the details is not always welcomed if you are a technical person trying to read fast. (Like, "get to the point!").
Your editorial on his "of course" is from the perspective of somebody who is not in the inside. He may be kicking himself for doing something else previously, or he is just emphasising a point that he may have been making all the time.
I am a technical person doing a technical job. I don't care if other people don't understand my writing as long as what I say is clear to the people who are genuinely interested in the details of my work. Some journals actually do not accept papers that are more than certain number of pages long, so you have to be concise and to the point. If one is interested enough and do not understand, then one would go and find it out for oneself, and learn something in the process.
I am a science person, and if you are interested in what I do, I will be more than happy to describe to you my research to whatever detail (or none) that you want. But when I write, it's a completely different matter : I write to bring a point across to someone who cares about the details not just the "Big picture" (for that you read NYT.)
And that's what Carmack is doing. Your insinuation that he is intentionally writing using jargon to make people feel like a retard is totally uncalled for.
I go for a 14, a 7, a 9 and lychees .
>I'm sick of this. I'm about ready to move to some country that has smaller government and less governmental interference in my life. Anybody got any suggestions?
Canada?
One reason I still read /.
Although filled with usual bull, sometimes it does give the little guy a bigger voice.
hehehe, we physics students have a nice time thinking about band names from physics jargon. OUr favourite is still "The Naked Singularity."
:)
Btw, the naked singularity is a concept from general relativity : it is the point in spacetime where Einstein's equation blows up and makes no sense. All blackholes, mathematically, have singularities in the middle, but they are "hidden" behind the event horizon, so a guy who fall into the blackhole may see the singularity, but will never get out to tell his friends outside the black hole. A naked singularity is one that is not "hidden" by an event horizion.
There is a conjecture, called Cosmic Censorship that says that naked singularities do not exist in nature. It is not proven. ALso, Cosmic Censorship is a great name for a band too
yeah, poor Laika was launched into space without any means of getting her back.
I demand justice.
stick in some forcefeedback hydraulics (like the ones in force feedback joysticks), and viola! AutoPr0nSeats available on Business Class seats for $499.95!
Man, I may fly business class if I can have them seats massage my buttocks for the 24 hour flights I have to take to get home....
make a moving model, it's yet another grand exercise in scale conversations, road trips and beer :).
Sticking is not the question. It is what form the kinetic energy of the comet is converted to (if it sticks then 100% of the kinetic energy has to go somewhere).
:).
Imagine this scenario : stick a very large pole on earth, with one end of the pole out into space. Shoot the comet into that end of the pole. The comet sticks to the pole, but very little damage is done to earth although earth (with its pole) has just effectively gained the same amount of energy. It is just not in a destructive form.
But yes, it is still arguable. When in doubt, ask Mr Bad Astronomy
>How? There have been similar impacts in the past, and the shuttles have come back fine, so would you have launched a highly dangerous rescue mission for those previous launches based on your "five second equation"?
Because the NASA people is guilty of not exercising "due diligence". If a 5-second equation tells you something is not right, then you go and figure out WHY your equation is not fitting with the experiments. Basically, they have a problem they did NOT understand, and they closed their eyes to it.
it depends on the relative velocity.
ISS and the shuttle are two things flying in space, they docked, nothing bad happened.
The thing is that for anything to be in orbit, it has to be at a very high velocity (about 7 km/sec for the shuttle orbit). If two orbits criss-crossed, say something going at inclination 60deg and the other at 30deg, then you can use pythagoras theorem to compute the relative velocity. That's about 10 km/sec, which is pretty high. A fleck of dust at that velocity will destroy a lot of things, because the energy imparted is mass x velocity^2. Squaring 10 km/sec gives you a very big number.
That's the lesson that NASA is learning. ANd I am dead surprised that they are just learning. Gawd, how could they have missed that? If they have thought about impacts and stuff, 1.7 POUNDS of stuff at any speed is BAD, however "fluffy" it is. THat's why comets hitting EARTH is a bad thing. Comets are fluffier than candyfloss, but their kinetic energy is what blows earth to bits. (Remember the movie Deep Impact? Destroying the comet so close to earth actually will do MORE damage to earth than letting hit earth, since it increases the efficiency of transferring the kinetic energy into heat energy. If they have let the comet hit earth as a whole, some of the energy may be used to "move earth" a little, i.e. increase the velocity of earth instead of changing it to destructive heat energy.)
I don't know why you are still arguing when we agree that Pu is dangerous. ( Unless you disagree, which then I think you have provided enough evidence yourself to contradict yourself.)
The other arguments about lifetimes, strontium etc are true facts, which does not support nor erode the argument that Pu is dangerous.
Pu is a dangerous substance. To argue otherwise it's just arguing for argument's sake.
Btw, I did lived for 3 years in the approach of a major airport, and worked for 1 year in the approach of another, thank you very much.(Damn, don't I hate personal attacks.)
Alpha particle, last i heard, is a high energy particle that can kill you if exposed to large doses.
People working in the WW2 bomb projects do not know of the risks (or does not care) so they were being stupid. Many finally died of cancer.If it is warm to the touch, then it must be radiating like mad.
The longer the half life has little to do with the danger it poses to you. According to your logic, U-234 (245000 yrs) and U-238 (4.47 Billion years) are as safe as plutonium, both by the way emit Alpha Particles in their decay. It is the amount of radiation that kills you,and if you have a lot of those who cares how slowly is the decay rate.
Alpha particles will not penetrate your skin, but you can inahle plutonium and it will then kill you.
Dumping tons of Plutonium into the atmosphere will spread it out, and there's a lot of atmosphere so I am not worried. But I'll like to see you live next to a ton of Plutonium. Do you believe enough in what you say to do that?
Great. I'll take 7, 19, 14 and lychees.
>A nuclear plant meltdown makes way less radiation than any nuclear weapon.
Please support this comment with some references.
>There are nuclear plant designs which are inherently safer. They shutdown automatically without outside control when there is a problem.
Try 3mile island and chernobyl.
>Regarding Plutonium being poisonous do you know Caffeine is more poisonous than Plutonium?
Plutonium emits nice high energy particles that will kill you. Caffeine don't.Poison is not the question here.
Mind you, I think nuclear energy is the way of the future. But if you want to bash the "peace-niks", at least do it rightly.
take a screen snapshot - illegal.
Hmmm, then some anti-cheating software for Online games such as Punkbuster for Q3A has a screenshot grab function (to detect wallhacks) makes it illegal?
I didn't know I was commiting a crime! Honest!
Good idea. You might get free Britney T-shirts.
The stupid researchers gave us a lousy computer, waaaaaaay outdated to do anything. For example, one of my concubine wants to play the game Quake3, but that damned thing does not even have a GUI! Pffft..
So what are we suppose to do? We did what any human would do : we shit on it. Because, adding pieces of shit to a piece of shit is not going to make it look any less bad than it already is.
Btw, I posted this using lynx and a stupid 14.4 modem that my resident science chimp had managed to hook together (Thanks Baba!). We tried for First Post, but some idiot beat us to it.
Yours,
Able,
Alpha Male Monkey,
Plymouth.
Nice :). Didn't know that!
Ok, I feel bad about this...
.
:).
>is it likely that there is a vast quantity of dark matter resposible for the effects that we are seeing? absolutely -- our, up until now, undisputed theory suggests it, and it has served us well in so many ways that we have no reason to doubt it. is also possible that we may not be able to observe this matter due to the noise and insensitivity of our apparati? we would be naive to believe otherwise.
But DM has multiple problems at galactic scales, which is why people still entertain alternatives.
A nice review is this article
Still, if i am a betting man, I'll put a lot of money on DM
Rhetoric is not evidence. And neither are anecdotes about "martyr scientists".
>Perhaps you'll do better after some rest?
I think you have overstepped the boundary of civil discussion. End of discussion.
well, you might be interested in this :
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ps/astro-ph/0302030
Hehehe. I spent an entire year trying to formulate a covariant form of Mond with no success. So there!
Ops, wrong cut-paste. The last quote should be :
:-) or bleak because it's aimed at reason? And how about those people who have reasoned their way to a particular belief?
>You also don't appear to have considered those people (rationalists) who have faith in reason alone, is their faith warm because it's faith (-: the creed of sola rationa?
Please supply proof (anecdotes don't count) of such an assertion.
>The second article I linked relies on selection-by-beaming for its logic
:).
How so?
>Many scientists have faith in their intuition, and it doesn't matter in this example whether their faith is justified or not. Reason takes them thus far, and then they strike out in faith, not knowing whether their suspicions will bear fruit. And sometimes it's a bleak uncertainty of faith, too, unencouraged (or even hampered) by their workmates and peers.
NOw you are committing the same fallacy as the last one in my previous post : a personal attack, on the entire scientific community no less
>Many scientists have faith in their intuition, and it doesn't matter in this example whether their faith is justified or not. Reason takes them thus far, and then they strike out in faith, not knowing whether their suspicions will bear fruit. And sometimes it's a bleak uncertainty of faith, too, unencouraged (or even hampered) by their workmates and peers.
Please supply proof (anecdotes don't count) of such an assertion.