I don't think that's true at all, you could get very nearly the same level of accuracy from sensor packages retrofitted on existing ships.
Fine. Tell me how much you're going to pay me for the days dockside while you fit your sensors to my boat. Also, you'll need to be paying the accommodation and transport for my electrical technician to be taught the techniques and procedures for maintaining and/ or repairing your equipment. And how many pad-eyes of what load rating will you need fitting to my deck, to support your equipment? Who is responsible for the maintenance, certification, inspection and servicing of the pad-eyes, 4-part shackles and cables? Oh, and here is the phone number of my vessel's insurance agent - get them to call me when they've agreed to your proposals and we'll make arrangements to go into dock (or off paying work - same thing) for the refit.
Oh, minor question - will you be hanging the stuff off port side or starboard? Because that rather matters as it affects which side you can tie up on. Or does my vessel's master have to retract the equipment to deck before tieing up? In which case, we won't be needing to provide just pad-eyes, but a winch, with all it's documentation requirements.
Have you never had to deal with installing third-party equipment on an international vessel? It's a really fun experience. Not.
It may be higher than that. I've had a couple credit cards get stolen in the last few years.
Hmmmm, thinks. I can't remember that happening since the rush-hour underground in Athens in about 2009.
If it's happening to you on a nearly yearly basis... I suspect you need to review your personal security behaviours. I do plenty of dodgy things in dodgy places. But I leave the cards in a tamper-evident bag, locked in the safe and use cash while I'm doing it.
"Hello Default User Name, I have found three suppliers of goats in your area, one which asserts that it's goats are virgins. Please complete your account set-up for us to order you a goat and have it delivered to your home. Please specify 'virgin' or 'experienced' in your order."
That is very debatable. Not the infestation rates - that's about right. But the use of chemicals to treat the infected fish.
The problem is that the tanks are open to seawater. They kind-of have to be - to make use of the oxygenation and waste consumption services of large areas of ocean surface and seabed without paying for those services. That's the entire economic basis of fish farming, after all. So, if they treat the fish in the main tank (see footnote), then inevitably some of the treating chemical will escape the tank and go into the wider environment. At a less-than optimal concentration for treatment. When the lice came, as likely as not from that very same environment.
That sounds to me like a recipe for breeding a resistant strain of sea louse. It also sounds like that to farmers in the same area who use different strains of salmon, or who try to farm different species and who are concerned that a resistant strain could infect their breeding stocks and destroy their businesses. Whoops, time to call in the landsharks! And they're in the game already!
So, to date the SOP for dealing with an infected fish is to kill it, and then throw it in the "biohazard" waste bin and pay for it's disposal at landfill or incineration. (footnote) Multiple handling of the fish ("sequestering") involves too many man-hours, again destroying the economic basis of the business. Remember - the whole point of this business is to produce greater tonnages of fish more cheaply than finding it on the open sea. So they've got to keep costs down. (Which is also part of the reason for the fear of a more-resistant sea-louse strain.)
"Humanoids", I'll grant. But before they can claim personhood they'll need to pass some basic "captcha"-like tests to prove that they're not robots, arts students etc.
Because the "ready understanding" that you seek is based on your experiences at low velocities (far, far less than the speed of light). Your understanding may be al that you have, but if that is the case then you have no real choice but to work through the maths.
Of some relevance - at around the time that Maxwell was generating his work on electrodynamics, the problems of travelling faster than the transmission speed of longitudinal waves in a medium - sound wave in air or water - were also starting to become clear as ships started digging into their own wakes and bullets started to travel supersonically. When peculiar things started to happen. The analogy is far from perfect, but it's about as close as you're going to get to a car analogy.
Is that "supersonic car" thing still over-budget, behind schedule, undelivered, or all of the above?
Oh yes, ""Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter KÃrper" (in English, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", in which he refers extensively to Maxwell's work and the asymmetries "which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena" (Perrett and Jeffery's translation of 1923). Einstein cited his sources perfectly adequately in the form of the time, even if subsequent writers haven't been so careful in their commentary on his work.
A god-squad idiot. Not worth considering any further. I see that his god didn't do anything useful for him, like not preventing him from dieing. So, at a functional level she is at best, useless, if not worse than useless.
The point is, someone is proposing a method of using a in-construction tool to test this point, as their "card on the table" in the competition for observing time on the scope when it achieves first light. Or, considering it'll be a zenithal scope, whose viewing schedules are dictated by the rotation of the Earth, they'll be bidding for time to observe (and get spectra of) the supernovae that get caught by the LSST, using other steerable scopes that can accumulate the tens of hours of observation needed to get a spectrum of adequate signal-to-noise level.
Please reference the work of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake et al.
Why? I wasn't thinking him important enough to be worth mentioning. Indeed, until he got mentioned here, I thought he'd died, or gone onto breakfast TV, or some horrible fate of unbeing.
why even worry? seriously, texting designed for 99% percent casual and occasional comm
Is that what was actually the design intention of the system that we now use for SMS? It wasn't even mentioned when I first got a phone (1994 or 95, IIRC ; certainly several years before I got a 486 or a CD drive) and it was several months before I knew enough people with a mobile phone to discover that SMS was actually quite useful. Then the story was that it was a system primarily designed for network diagnostics, but to everyone (of the GSM system's designers) it was surprising that the very limited message length did not greatly deter people from using it. But hey, if you've got a link to one of the design specification proposals for GSM - which would date to around 1990 - saying what the purpose of SMS was, that'll be great.
And the ignorance about dark matter [...] makes creationists look well informed.
Ohhh, cruel! And as a geologist, I've been using barbed spikes and pain-enhancing medications on creationists for decades. With malice aforethought.
I'm perfectly happy to admit that I know nothing about the subject. I've never heard of "quantized inertia" before now. It doesn't look good when all that Wikipedia can come up with on the subject is a link to (this?) Motherboard article (on principle, I don't follow links to Motherboard, since they're invariably unviewable without enabling 438 (or more) advert-servers in No-Script. And then the content is crap when I get there), and a You-Tube video (not worth the bandwidth - see the "if a picture paints a thousand words - it should be smaller than about 30kb" argument).
Sigh. What is on Arxiv? Search for "Quantized inertia" (including quotes) : nothing. Without the quotes : 35 results... not one of which uses the actual phrase (about as expected), and none look particularly likely. What about the guy's name? 15 results, all single-author papers (not good), but he's been getting published ("Journal ref: McCulloch, M.E. Astrophys Space Sci (2017) 362: 149" ; "Journal ref: Astrophys Space Sci (2017) 362: 57" ; "Accepted for publication in EPL, 13/10/2016" ; "Journal ref: EPL, 111, 60005, 2015" ; "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 11th February, 2013" ; "Accepted for publication in Astrophysics and Space Science on 27/7/2012" ; "To appear in the SPESIF-2011 conference proceedings, in Physics Procedia" ; "Accepted by EPL on the 16th June, 2011" ; "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 19th April, 2010." ; "Journal ref: Europhys.Lett.89:19001,2010" ; "Journal ref: MNRAS-letters, 389(1), L57-60, 2008." ; "Journal ref: J.Br.Interplanet.Soc. 61: 373-378, 2008" ; "Journal ref: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.376:338-342,2007"
Now, they're perfectly respectable journals (well, most of them. Conference proceedings can be a bit loose.), and they're still getting published every couple of years. Which is not the sound of someone having the doors of the ivory tower slammed in his face. However, there's not a cascade of follow-up there.
it could turn out to be a collection of gravitationally bound objects in a common orbit similar to Pluto and Charon, for instance.
Multiple objects of similar mass in mutual orbit are very rare, Pluto-Charon being considerably the closest of the large bodies. The next closest in the size stakes is 79360 Sila-Nunamat 243 and 230km diameter, around a tenth of the diameter and so a bit less than a thousandth of the mass of Pluto-Charon.
The Brown-Batygin 2016 proposal has the unknown planet being around 8-10 times the mass of the Earth. That's around 5000 time the Pluto-Charon system's mass, and probably 800 to a thousand times the mass of the Kuiper Belt in total.
but on a practical level given the range of other objects we now know are out there it probably does make more sense to have it in some other category
We have - it's the category of "Dwarf Planet", including Pluto-Charon, Ceres, Vesta, Make-make, Haumea and the like. Large enough to have self-rounded, but not large enough to have dynamic dominance of their orbital regions.
and they'll then figure out a way to include Pluto as a planet again (based on mass
Pluto-Charon fails. It's a little over 4% of the mass of the next smallest planet, Mercury, which is half the mass of the next smallest planet, Mars.
and orbital inclination/
Pluto-Charon fails. 17.2 degrees versus 7 degrees (Mercury, again).
circularity, perhaps?)
You mean e, the eccentricity of their orbit? There you've got a slightly better case. {Body - eccentricity} pairs are Pluto - 0.244 ; Mercury - 0.205 ; Mars - 0.094 ; Saturn - 0.057 ; Jupiter - 0.049 ; Uranus - 0.046 ; Earth - 0.017 ; Neptune - 0.011 ; Venus - 0.007. Which marks Mercury as being decidedly unusual among the rest of the planets. Clearly, it has had a bit of a rough time, which is why it still has a percent or so chance of being ejected from the Solar System before the Sun goes red-giant and makes Mercury's future a bit academic.
to stop at least some of the bickering.
The bickering is confined to non-astronomers, the New Horizons team (who launched a probe to a planet and flew by a dwarf planet) and a few others. Most simply don't care - they know what the properties of Pluto-Charon are and that's enough.
Having said that, I'd better amble off to Twitter and see how #TeamIce are doing in this year's #MinCup - a knock-out competition for geologists to name their favourite mineral. Where there has been much argument over whether or not ice is a mineral. (Hint : it is.)
Please don't insult people by assuming they are American.
Gendered versus non-gendered languages are definitely confusing. Almost as confusing as two-gender versus three-gender languages. Or, for that matter, languages with versus without articles.
"It" or "one" is perfectly acceptable English, even if it may (or may not) be unacceptable in American. I don't know, because I don't speak American.
Which opens a whole can of political weirdnesses which are probably specific to America. How on earth can a town be "incorporated? It's almost as if it had a historical origin date, with no preceding land ownership. Very bizarre concept.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, minor question - will you be hanging the stuff off port side or starboard? Because that rather matters as it affects which side you can tie up on. Or does my vessel's master have to retract the equipment to deck before tieing up? In which case, we won't be needing to provide just pad-eyes, but a winch, with all it's documentation requirements.
Have you never had to deal with installing third-party equipment on an international vessel? It's a really fun experience. Not.
Hmmmm, thinks. I can't remember that happening since the rush-hour underground in Athens in about 2009.
If it's happening to you on a nearly yearly basis ... I suspect you need to review your personal security behaviours. I do plenty of dodgy things in dodgy places. But I leave the cards in a tamper-evident bag, locked in the safe and use cash while I'm doing it.
"Hello Default User Name, I have found three suppliers of goats in your area, one which asserts that it's goats are virgins. Please complete your account set-up for us to order you a goat and have it delivered to your home. Please specify 'virgin' or 'experienced' in your order."
You're right ; sorry. The rest of my point stands though.
Very much my first thought - a relatively small number of incompetents or recalcitrants.
The really depressing thing about it is, the first actual examination of the numbers comes about 90% down the list of Slashdot comments.
The problem is that the tanks are open to seawater. They kind-of have to be - to make use of the oxygenation and waste consumption services of large areas of ocean surface and seabed without paying for those services. That's the entire economic basis of fish farming, after all. So, if they treat the fish in the main tank (see footnote), then inevitably some of the treating chemical will escape the tank and go into the wider environment. At a less-than optimal concentration for treatment. When the lice came, as likely as not from that very same environment.
That sounds to me like a recipe for breeding a resistant strain of sea louse. It also sounds like that to farmers in the same area who use different strains of salmon, or who try to farm different species and who are concerned that a resistant strain could infect their breeding stocks and destroy their businesses. Whoops, time to call in the landsharks! And they're in the game already!
So, to date the SOP for dealing with an infected fish is to kill it, and then throw it in the "biohazard" waste bin and pay for it's disposal at landfill or incineration. (footnote) Multiple handling of the fish ("sequestering") involves too many man-hours, again destroying the economic basis of the business. Remember - the whole point of this business is to produce greater tonnages of fish more cheaply than finding it on the open sea. So they've got to keep costs down. (Which is also part of the reason for the fear of a more-resistant sea-louse strain.)
I don't know if they're contagious. I guess they are, to an extent.
"Humanoids", I'll grant. But before they can claim personhood they'll need to pass some basic "captcha"-like tests to prove that they're not robots, arts students etc.
Of some relevance - at around the time that Maxwell was generating his work on electrodynamics, the problems of travelling faster than the transmission speed of longitudinal waves in a medium - sound wave in air or water - were also starting to become clear as ships started digging into their own wakes and bullets started to travel supersonically. When peculiar things started to happen. The analogy is far from perfect, but it's about as close as you're going to get to a car analogy.
Is that "supersonic car" thing still over-budget, behind schedule, undelivered, or all of the above?
Oh yes, ""Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter KÃrper" (in English, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", in which he refers extensively to Maxwell's work and the asymmetries "which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena" (Perrett and Jeffery's translation of 1923). Einstein cited his sources perfectly adequately in the form of the time, even if subsequent writers haven't been so careful in their commentary on his work.
A god-squad idiot. Not worth considering any further. I see that his god didn't do anything useful for him, like not preventing him from dieing. So, at a functional level she is at best, useless, if not worse than useless.
I'm not a science writer. I'm an industrial geologist. And I call idiots,"idiots" when I see them.
The point is, someone is proposing a method of using a in-construction tool to test this point, as their "card on the table" in the competition for observing time on the scope when it achieves first light. Or, considering it'll be a zenithal scope, whose viewing schedules are dictated by the rotation of the Earth, they'll be bidding for time to observe (and get spectra of) the supernovae that get caught by the LSST, using other steerable scopes that can accumulate the tens of hours of observation needed to get a spectrum of adequate signal-to-noise level.
Why? I wasn't thinking him important enough to be worth mentioning. Indeed, until he got mentioned here, I thought he'd died, or gone onto breakfast TV, or some horrible fate of unbeing.
Is that what was actually the design intention of the system that we now use for SMS? It wasn't even mentioned when I first got a phone (1994 or 95, IIRC ; certainly several years before I got a 486 or a CD drive) and it was several months before I knew enough people with a mobile phone to discover that SMS was actually quite useful. Then the story was that it was a system primarily designed for network diagnostics, but to everyone (of the GSM system's designers) it was surprising that the very limited message length did not greatly deter people from using it. But hey, if you've got a link to one of the design specification proposals for GSM - which would date to around 1990 - saying what the purpose of SMS was, that'll be great.
Which I'm sure you knew. Even if it's beyond President Tiny-Hands' knowledge or even ability to comprehend.
>Not "if", but "when".
Ohhh, cruel! And as a geologist, I've been using barbed spikes and pain-enhancing medications on creationists for decades. With malice aforethought.
I'm perfectly happy to admit that I know nothing about the subject. I've never heard of "quantized inertia" before now. It doesn't look good when all that Wikipedia can come up with on the subject is a link to (this?) Motherboard article (on principle, I don't follow links to Motherboard, since they're invariably unviewable without enabling 438 (or more) advert-servers in No-Script. And then the content is crap when I get there), and a You-Tube video (not worth the bandwidth - see the "if a picture paints a thousand words - it should be smaller than about 30kb" argument).
Sigh. What is on Arxiv? Search for "Quantized inertia" (including quotes) : nothing. Without the quotes : 35 results ... not one of which uses the actual phrase (about as expected), and none look particularly likely. What about the guy's name? 15 results, all single-author papers (not good), but he's been getting published ("Journal ref: McCulloch, M.E. Astrophys Space Sci (2017) 362: 149" ; "Journal ref: Astrophys Space Sci (2017) 362: 57" ; "Accepted for publication in EPL, 13/10/2016" ; "Journal ref: EPL, 111, 60005, 2015" ; "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 11th February, 2013" ; "Accepted for publication in Astrophysics and Space Science on 27/7/2012" ; "To appear in the SPESIF-2011 conference proceedings, in Physics Procedia" ; "Accepted by EPL on the 16th June, 2011" ; "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 19th April, 2010." ; "Journal ref: Europhys.Lett.89:19001,2010" ; "Journal ref: MNRAS-letters, 389(1), L57-60, 2008." ; "Journal ref: J.Br.Interplanet.Soc. 61: 373-378, 2008" ; "Journal ref: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.376:338-342,2007"
Now, they're perfectly respectable journals (well, most of them. Conference proceedings can be a bit loose.), and they're still getting published every couple of years. Which is not the sound of someone having the doors of the ivory tower slammed in his face. However, there's not a cascade of follow-up there.
Sigh. Got some reading to do, I guess.
Multiple objects of similar mass in mutual orbit are very rare, Pluto-Charon being considerably the closest of the large bodies. The next closest in the size stakes is 79360 Sila-Nunamat 243 and 230km diameter, around a tenth of the diameter and so a bit less than a thousandth of the mass of Pluto-Charon.
The Brown-Batygin 2016 proposal has the unknown planet being around 8-10 times the mass of the Earth. That's around 5000 time the Pluto-Charon system's mass, and probably 800 to a thousand times the mass of the Kuiper Belt in total.
We have - it's the category of "Dwarf Planet", including Pluto-Charon, Ceres, Vesta, Make-make, Haumea and the like. Large enough to have self-rounded, but not large enough to have dynamic dominance of their orbital regions.
Pluto-Charon fails. It's a little over 4% of the mass of the next smallest planet, Mercury, which is half the mass of the next smallest planet, Mars.
Pluto-Charon fails. 17.2 degrees versus 7 degrees (Mercury, again).
You mean e, the eccentricity of their orbit? There you've got a slightly better case. {Body - eccentricity} pairs are Pluto - 0.244 ; Mercury - 0.205 ; Mars - 0.094 ; Saturn - 0.057 ; Jupiter - 0.049 ; Uranus - 0.046 ; Earth - 0.017 ; Neptune - 0.011 ; Venus - 0.007. Which marks Mercury as being decidedly unusual among the rest of the planets. Clearly, it has had a bit of a rough time, which is why it still has a percent or so chance of being ejected from the Solar System before the Sun goes red-giant and makes Mercury's future a bit academic.
The bickering is confined to non-astronomers, the New Horizons team (who launched a probe to a planet and flew by a dwarf planet) and a few others. Most simply don't care - they know what the properties of Pluto-Charon are and that's enough.
Having said that, I'd better amble off to Twitter and see how #TeamIce are doing in this year's #MinCup - a knock-out competition for geologists to name their favourite mineral. Where there has been much argument over whether or not ice is a mineral. (Hint : it is.)
It's something to do with sharing the costs (but not the blood diseases) of tattooing, as far as I can tell.
Please don't insult people by assuming they are American.
Gendered versus non-gendered languages are definitely confusing. Almost as confusing as two-gender versus three-gender languages. Or, for that matter, languages with versus without articles.
"It" or "one" is perfectly acceptable English, even if it may (or may not) be unacceptable in American. I don't know, because I don't speak American.
Which opens a whole can of political weirdnesses which are probably specific to America. How on earth can a town be "incorporated? It's almost as if it had a historical origin date, with no preceding land ownership. Very bizarre concept.
The paper has 6 co-authors. I know many more pedants than that in read life.
Why search extra-terrestrially, when we have un-tapped reserves here on Earth?
I've already helped, by having fewer offspring than I have parents. Have you done anything as beneficial to me as that is to your offspring?