Or do they really mean self-driving, but not really because you can't actually trust it enough to drive itself?
Or we talking about cars in some sort of nonphysical reality that doesn't need to worry about things like pedestrians, other traffic, or concrete barricades?
What will save lives if if they stop trying to market these so-called "self-driving cars" as self driving.... call it what it is, adaptive cruise control and lane assist. Yes, it's a mouthful, but then people won't be so inclined to get it in their heads that it actually drives itself. About the only thing they can really be relied upon to do themselves is parallel park.
It might be ignorance that causes people to think that "autopilot" means that it should be no less capable of driving itself without supervision than at least a person who has least passed a properly conducted driving exam in real world conditions, but that's not going to go away because of these accidents.
There is nobody on earth that a 140 year copyright term benefits. Nobody. Even the so-called benefit it offers corporations is specious because other protections exist for corporations that wish to hold onto intellectual property for that length of time. There is precisely *zero* chance that a creator who made something over a hundred years ago is going to be even slightly bothered by somebody copying them because they are already dead... and of course, since the creator is dead, it won't even be possible to get written permission.
Old Mickey Mouse cartoons are already public domain in Canada, for example.
But the character is still trademarked by Disney, so there are still limits on what you can do.
One can, however, copy such old works freely here... and give them away or even charge for them. Derivative works are also allowed, but the characters and depictions would have to be changed because of trademark protection.
It's my understanding that USPS has something called a "bulk discount rate", and Amazon simply utilizes this when using the postal service. Why should Amazon now be prohibited from doing so, or is the proposal to remove the bulk discount rate entirely?
I didn't say it wasn't evidence of a plume happening on Europa... that, at least, would make sense. What I said it wasn't evidence of was that, as the article says, it flew *THROUGH* such a plume.
I don't refute that plumes happen... but in fact, there's no real direct evidence that the probe actually flew through such a plume. It matches the data, but considering they didn't actually detect any water vapor at the time the probe flew throught it, this as likely to be a coincidence as not.
In fact, if it were so outwardly obvious that it had flown through a water plume as what you suggest, they would have realized it in 1997, and not just now.
Because the ionized gas wasn't water. In fact, if were anything other than hydrogen, the article likely would have said so because hydrogen is so abundant in the universe that it is implicitly considered the default for such phenomena.
Nowhere in that story did it say that the sensors detected water, however.,.. it said it detected plasma and ionized gas. It said nothing about the elemental (or molecular) composition of anything that had detected. In fact, if it had detected water vapor, there is absolutely no reason that this story would not have explicitly said so, rather than dance around it by saying that the measurements were merely consistent with having flown through such a plume.
I think it's more likely to be something else, yes... but that's only because I realize that there's more in the universe that we don't know than what we do know, and in absence of any direct observation of a water plume that it was flying through (actually detecting water vapour, explicitly, in particular), while I don't question that flying through a water plume is a definite possibility, I wouldn't consider it to be a particularly likely one just because I don't have any alternative explanation that is more likely.
You can't evaluate the likelihood of something from only one sample anyways.
rapid increase in the density of plasma, or ionised gas
Yeah... and even a rank amateur astronomer is going to know that when you are talking about such things in space, you are generally referring to hydrogen unless explicitly indicated otherwise.
Besides, water vapor is a *compound*, not an elemental substance, so how the heck do you think that would even work?
The prices of housing would not drop if Amazon left... I say this as one who lives in a city that has a housing price crisis far worse than Seattle.
All that will happen is that the housing market will slow down a bit, but it will not create a significant dip in price, because most people will not be willing to sell their homes for less than they were worth when they bought them. Developers will stop making new builds as a consequence of the slowed demand, and the rate of housing price increase will slow to a trickle.
But it will not be affordable again.... or at least not in any time scale that is meaningful to anyone alive today. It might make a difference for your grandchildren, as wages finally start catching up with housing prices, but that's about it.
If in fact they had detected the plume by sensors, then the article would have said that... but they did not. They described what the sensors *did* detect, and suggested that a water plume would be consistent with what they detected, despite not having any direct evidence of such a plume.
FTA:
As it hurtled past [Europa], instruments onboard the probe detected a brief but dramatic twist in the magnetic field and a sudden, rapid increase in the density of plasma, or ionised gas, the spacecraft was flying through.
Nowhere in there does it say or suggest that the sensors detected a water plume that it was flying through.
I'm not suggesting that it didn't necessarily fly through a water plume, only noting that since such a plume was not observed by any direct observation or measurement for the existence of water vapour in the environment in which the probe happened to be as it was detecting this anomaly, the statement that it supposedly actually flew through a water plume seems to be scientifically dishonest, because in reality all they know about what happened are the things that they actually measured.
I'm suggesting that if they weren't actually taking measurements at the time that could substantiate such a conclusion (specfifically either photographic evidence, or else an actual direct analysis of whatever environment it was flying through at the time the anomaly was detected), it seems vastly more likely that it's because of something they haven't thought of at all.
Yes, we will never know what the Galileo probe flew through in 1997. But it's not exactly a stretch to say that we can see plumes shooting from the surface, we've long assumed that there is an ocean twice as large as all the oceans on Earth, so, therefore, maybe it flew through a water jet. Happens to fit the data we do have also. Yeah, it could have been a cloud of alien pee. But it was probably a water jet.
I trust you can see the progression from ignorance to probable conclusion, even without providing any new data that was not already known.
And it's one thing to say that there is evidence of water plumes, but it's quite another to say that it actually flew through one while it was going off.
Sure it's possible, but in the end, they don't actually have any direct evidence to support it beyond that it fits the data that they did happen to measure. If they had been taking environmental measurements at the time that said it was flying through water vapor, sure.... but they don't They start by saying that a water plume would explain the data, and somehow morph that into a conclusion that a water plume is the most likely explanation for the data. That's what I've raised objection to.
My objection is to conclude that it is something like a plume of water when they didn't actually, you know, detect any friggen plume of water. It just so happens that a plume of water fits the data they have.
Given that there's vastly more about the universe that we don't know than we do, it seems more likely to me that when they didn't even directly detect the thing, it's more than likely caused by some other phenomenon that they just weren't prepared to look for at the time.
As it sits, their claim looks no different than if they had just said they didn't know what it was, except that admitting as much would at least be far more honest.
My point is that they don't even actually know that it flew through water *AT ALL*... only that it detected anomalies which could be plausibly explained by having flown through a water plume.
Now maybe it did, and their guesses are right, but because they didn't actually detect any water that it was flying through, I consider their so-called explanation to be isomorphic to them not actually knowing what happened, but being simply too proud to admit as much.
I would think that you'd need to establish that there was something on the probe afterwards that could reliably be identified as water, or that a chemical analysis of whatever it was flying through at the time was water vapor.
Given that the probe (to the best of my understanding) isn't designed for atmospheric exploration, I expect it's unlikely to have the instrumentation necessary to evaluate this, so I wouldn't want to conclude anything, because there's far more about the universe that we don't know than we do... and making an assumption about it only based on what we think we do know when we don't have enough direct evidence of what we're evaluating to objectively substantiate it is, IMO, nothing more than blind guesswork.
Pictures don't have to be based on visible light. My main point is that they did not directly detect any plume of water... they detected some phenomena that could be plausibly explained by flying through such a plume, but they did not actually detect any plume of water that the craft flew through.
Well we know that Europa has water.... we've known it for some time. What we don't know, or at least what I can infer that we don't know from the article, is that the probe *ACTUALLY* flew through a plume of water... only that a water plume would be one plausible explanation for the data that they had received.
If the probe had *detected* the water it was flying through, even that would be something... but from what I was able to take from the article, no such actual detection was made... they are only inferring that it flew through a plume from the data that they have. Now maybe this inference is right, but absent any actual direct detection of it, it's still just an assumption.
I'm not saying that's not what it is, nor am I contesting that a water plume could plausible explain the data that they had received from their probe, but unless they got an actual picture of what the probe could see around it at the time, I don't think it's reasonable to assume anything conclusive.
It may have been caused by some unexpected effect on the jovian planet itself that they weren't prepared to look for.
Slashdot Mirror
Or do they really mean self-driving, but not really because you can't actually trust it enough to drive itself?
Or we talking about cars in some sort of nonphysical reality that doesn't need to worry about things like pedestrians, other traffic, or concrete barricades?
What will save lives if if they stop trying to market these so-called "self-driving cars" as self driving.... call it what it is, adaptive cruise control and lane assist. Yes, it's a mouthful, but then people won't be so inclined to get it in their heads that it actually drives itself. About the only thing they can really be relied upon to do themselves is parallel park.
It might be ignorance that causes people to think that "autopilot" means that it should be no less capable of driving itself without supervision than at least a person who has least passed a properly conducted driving exam in real world conditions, but that's not going to go away because of these accidents.
Where had you heard that the geothermal plant had triggered it?
There is nobody on earth that a 140 year copyright term benefits. Nobody. Even the so-called benefit it offers corporations is specious because other protections exist for corporations that wish to hold onto intellectual property for that length of time. There is precisely *zero* chance that a creator who made something over a hundred years ago is going to be even slightly bothered by somebody copying them because they are already dead... and of course, since the creator is dead, it won't even be possible to get written permission.
They are public domain.
Old Mickey Mouse cartoons are already public domain in Canada, for example.
But the character is still trademarked by Disney, so there are still limits on what you can do.
One can, however, copy such old works freely here... and give them away or even charge for them. Derivative works are also allowed, but the characters and depictions would have to be changed because of trademark protection.
It's my understanding that USPS has something called a "bulk discount rate", and Amazon simply utilizes this when using the postal service. Why should Amazon now be prohibited from doing so, or is the proposal to remove the bulk discount rate entirely?
Or it didn't fly through a plume at all, any more than you can say that the ISS regularly flies through hurricanes.
I didn't say it wasn't evidence of a plume happening on Europa... that, at least, would make sense. What I said it wasn't evidence of was that, as the article says, it flew *THROUGH* such a plume.
Hands down.... nothing we've written ourselves comes close to it.
While perhaps not exactly "written", per se.... it still seems very much like software.
I don't refute that plumes happen... but in fact, there's no real direct evidence that the probe actually flew through such a plume. It matches the data, but considering they didn't actually detect any water vapor at the time the probe flew throught it, this as likely to be a coincidence as not.
In fact, if it were so outwardly obvious that it had flown through a water plume as what you suggest, they would have realized it in 1997, and not just now.
Because the ionized gas wasn't water. In fact, if were anything other than hydrogen, the article likely would have said so because hydrogen is so abundant in the universe that it is implicitly considered the default for such phenomena.
Nowhere in that story did it say that the sensors detected water, however.,.. it said it detected plasma and ionized gas. It said nothing about the elemental (or molecular) composition of anything that had detected. In fact, if it had detected water vapor, there is absolutely no reason that this story would not have explicitly said so, rather than dance around it by saying that the measurements were merely consistent with having flown through such a plume.
I think it's more likely to be something else, yes... but that's only because I realize that there's more in the universe that we don't know than what we do know, and in absence of any direct observation of a water plume that it was flying through (actually detecting water vapour, explicitly, in particular), while I don't question that flying through a water plume is a definite possibility, I wouldn't consider it to be a particularly likely one just because I don't have any alternative explanation that is more likely.
You can't evaluate the likelihood of something from only one sample anyways.
Yeah... and even a rank amateur astronomer is going to know that when you are talking about such things in space, you are generally referring to hydrogen unless explicitly indicated otherwise.
Besides, water vapor is a *compound*, not an elemental substance, so how the heck do you think that would even work?
The prices of housing would not drop if Amazon left... I say this as one who lives in a city that has a housing price crisis far worse than Seattle.
All that will happen is that the housing market will slow down a bit, but it will not create a significant dip in price, because most people will not be willing to sell their homes for less than they were worth when they bought them. Developers will stop making new builds as a consequence of the slowed demand, and the rate of housing price increase will slow to a trickle.
But it will not be affordable again.... or at least not in any time scale that is meaningful to anyone alive today. It might make a difference for your grandchildren, as wages finally start catching up with housing prices, but that's about it.
If in fact they had detected the plume by sensors, then the article would have said that... but they did not. They described what the sensors *did* detect, and suggested that a water plume would be consistent with what they detected, despite not having any direct evidence of such a plume.
FTA:
Nowhere in there does it say or suggest that the sensors detected a water plume that it was flying through.
I'm not suggesting that it didn't necessarily fly through a water plume, only noting that since such a plume was not observed by any direct observation or measurement for the existence of water vapour in the environment in which the probe happened to be as it was detecting this anomaly, the statement that it supposedly actually flew through a water plume seems to be scientifically dishonest, because in reality all they know about what happened are the things that they actually measured.
I'm suggesting that if they weren't actually taking measurements at the time that could substantiate such a conclusion (specfifically either photographic evidence, or else an actual direct analysis of whatever environment it was flying through at the time the anomaly was detected), it seems vastly more likely that it's because of something they haven't thought of at all.
I trust you can see the progression from ignorance to probable conclusion, even without providing any new data that was not already known.
And it's one thing to say that there is evidence of water plumes, but it's quite another to say that it actually flew through one while it was going off.
Sure it's possible, but in the end, they don't actually have any direct evidence to support it beyond that it fits the data that they did happen to measure. If they had been taking environmental measurements at the time that said it was flying through water vapor, sure.... but they don't They start by saying that a water plume would explain the data, and somehow morph that into a conclusion that a water plume is the most likely explanation for the data. That's what I've raised objection to.
My objection is to conclude that it is something like a plume of water when they didn't actually, you know, detect any friggen plume of water. It just so happens that a plume of water fits the data they have.
Given that there's vastly more about the universe that we don't know than we do, it seems more likely to me that when they didn't even directly detect the thing, it's more than likely caused by some other phenomenon that they just weren't prepared to look for at the time.
As it sits, their claim looks no different than if they had just said they didn't know what it was, except that admitting as much would at least be far more honest.
Now maybe it did, and their guesses are right, but because they didn't actually detect any water that it was flying through, I consider their so-called explanation to be isomorphic to them not actually knowing what happened, but being simply too proud to admit as much.
I would think that you'd need to establish that there was something on the probe afterwards that could reliably be identified as water, or that a chemical analysis of whatever it was flying through at the time was water vapor.
Given that the probe (to the best of my understanding) isn't designed for atmospheric exploration, I expect it's unlikely to have the instrumentation necessary to evaluate this, so I wouldn't want to conclude anything, because there's far more about the universe that we don't know than we do... and making an assumption about it only based on what we think we do know when we don't have enough direct evidence of what we're evaluating to objectively substantiate it is, IMO, nothing more than blind guesswork.
Pictures don't have to be based on visible light. My main point is that they did not directly detect any plume of water... they detected some phenomena that could be plausibly explained by flying through such a plume, but they did not actually detect any plume of water that the craft flew through.
Well we know that Europa has water.... we've known it for some time. What we don't know, or at least what I can infer that we don't know from the article, is that the probe *ACTUALLY* flew through a plume of water... only that a water plume would be one plausible explanation for the data that they had received.
If the probe had *detected* the water it was flying through, even that would be something... but from what I was able to take from the article, no such actual detection was made... they are only inferring that it flew through a plume from the data that they have. Now maybe this inference is right, but absent any actual direct detection of it, it's still just an assumption.
I'm not saying that's not what it is, nor am I contesting that a water plume could plausible explain the data that they had received from their probe, but unless they got an actual picture of what the probe could see around it at the time, I don't think it's reasonable to assume anything conclusive.
It may have been caused by some unexpected effect on the jovian planet itself that they weren't prepared to look for.