I'm not a star wars fan, but I think that's MIDICHORIONS or something similar which you're confusing with MITOCHONDRIA (which are real things in our universe, and certainly do affect general fitness post-partum, and probably also affect fitness pre-partum.
People have mentioned a number of important points like lighting. From the materials presented, there is no built in lighting. The scans produced in the promotional video are horribly lighted, with the top and bottom of the pages very dark, and the middle over-exposed. Horrible.
I would be rather dubious about getting adequate quality images for OCR without controlling the lighting better. (I also wouldn't consider trying a task like this without pretty good OCR. that is near enough a solved problem these decades, given reasonable original images.)
Getting decent enough images to accurately render figures - graphs, or in one book I scanned previously, the tear-down/ re-build photos for the wheel hub on a broken car I owned.
As presented, there is no effort at controlling the curvature of the pages. that is incredibly annoying to attempt to read, and is going to be highly destructive to attempts to OCR the images. Text size will vary along each line, along with the focus.
With a HP flat bed scanner, running a stack of open source OCR components, and manually turning the book and the pages, I could get 4 - 5 pages per minute, which was adequate. Otherwise, find a reliable scanning company in India, and post the books over there, if your time is more valuable than my off-shift time is.
if we put a good atmosphere on it by terraforming, it would last several million years.
As I estimated here, delivering atmosphere at one Chelyabinsk (-size meteorite) an hour, it would take hundreds of thousands to a million or so years to deliver the atmosphere needed.
The paranoid in me wore double gloves when handling parts with liquid resin.
That's not paranoid. Paranoia is an irrational fear. Your concerns are rational. You may be overreacting a little, but that's probably safer than under-reacting. I use double gloves for hydrofluoric acid, but not for general organics.
Without following the clickbait, there's a good chance that you're correct.
But what's the point about the cost of sending people there? Apart from the first few colonists - a few thousand - they'll breed their own inhabitants. why would they want poor foreign immigrants from a polluted or nearly uninhabitable planet like Earth will be in the thousands of years that the project would take.
Or... were people thinking of dreams about the future being a substitute for dealing with current problems?
The answer doesn't matter. The steadily increasing heat output of the sun will render the Earth uninhabitable long before the red giant phase comes to pass.
Mercury's ROTATION is in resonant synchrony with it's ORBIT around the Sun, but that doesn't change the tidal forces themselves. It changes the change of tidal forces around the orbit, and therefore the work done on the planet by those forces. So tidal heating is minor.
What heats Io (and other Jovian and Saturnian satellites) is the change of forces on on the planet between those from Jupiter (Saturn) and the forces from the other satellites.
Tidal forces are generated by the steepness of the gravitational gradient across the orbit (which for a set planet is determined by the orbital radius), and the diameter of the satellite. The classical derivation requires you to calculate the orbital shape for a free-orbiting pebble at the sub-planetary point and the orbit for a free-orbiting pebble on the opposite side of the satellite. The two orbits would diverge. The stresses that this causes vary a small amount around a low eccentricity orbit, but for the Jovian (Saturnian) satellites, the change in proximity of the other satellites is far more significant than the simple Jovian tidal force.
Probes don't matter for getting the gross composition of the planet. Since the 1770s (when we got the scale of the solar System from the successful observation of a transit of Venus, and returned the data and did the calculations) we've known that Venus weigh about 5*10^24 kg, has a volume of about 9*10^11 km^3 (I'm being deliberately vague, as our precision has improved over the centuries), for a density of 5.3 tonnes/ m^3.
Bulk rocks have density between 2.5 and 3.1. With compression in the depths that gets up to about 3.5. Clearly there must be something denser somewhere. After that, it's question of trying to match the bulk density and the distribution of mass to get the same figures. Which you do need to fly a probe past, and track it's path carefully. Though you could get the same data (more slowly) with multiple natural asteroids)
Putting probes onto the surface of Venus will tell us the density of the surface rocks. But they're a trivial part of the question. To get to 1% of the volume of the planet, you'd need to measure the density of the average rocks down to a depth of 20km. We can't do that on Earth without a global network of seismographs (to measure seismic propagation velocities, from which we can deduce the density, with some assumptions).
The profit margins in TREATING a person's disease are higher than those in CURING someone's disease. So you don't even attempt to cure people, just treat their symptoms.
Why do you think it is in the least bit mysterious?
Titan has a surface atmospheric pressure of 1 and a half times that of Earth. If the Earth's atmosphere can move solid grains around, then it is no surprise that titan's atmosphere can.
Actually, it is more surprising that the atmosphere of Mars (1/100the earth;s surface pressure) can produce dunes.
There are no volunteers, these people are usually paid (and paid well enough) for their role in the ballot and count.
Just to clarify - the large majority of the personnel involved in the counting in the UK are not full-time election officials. Typically they are clerical staff of the local council, and are paid overtime for the (normally out of hours) work involved, and allowed time off in lieu (if a recount goes on to 7 in the morning).
Some nations - e.g. Scotland - just don't bother with the overnight count. Counting is done in office hours the next day, by the normal clerical staff.
The amounts of "missing mass" needed to account for the orbital velocity profiles of spiral galaxies is around an order of magnitude greater than the upper limit of non-luminous compact matter detected by MACHO surveys. Other surveys looking at luminous matter and dispersed non-luminous matter (dust clouds and gas nebulae) also didn't find enough matter to explain the discrepancy between the apparently present gravitating mass, and the inventory of luminous and non-luminous matter.
you need to pause, apply Occam's Razor, and ask "Did I measure this right in the first place? Or is my instrument mistuned?".
Your lack of conviction is noted. Have fun getting it past a funding allocation committee.
People spent decades working through these arguments in the 1970s and 1980s, designing experiments and instruments to investigate exactly these questions, then publishing the details. That wheel has been thoroughly investigated and found to be circular, to within a couple of % (better than the wheels on your car probably). To try another metaphor - that dwarf is standing there, asking you to climb onto it's shoulders so you can see further.
Perhaps if you didn't live in the US, you might have a different attitude. Which doesn't make you wrong. Nor does being in America make you right, contrary to much American internal propaganda.
TFS talks about the gas giants migrating into the inner solar system, then out again.
This is incorrect. What marched through the inner solar system was a series of small-number resonances (1:2, 2:3, 2:5, etc) with the orbits of (proto-)Jupiter and (proto-)Saturn, as the planets moved by considerably smaller amounts.
The migration of those resonant orbits disturbed the orbits of smaller bodies, which then interact (collide) with other bodies and amongst themselves, resulting in accretion or ejection.
Both Jupiter and Saturn produce resonances, though the Jovian ones are much the stronger.
Without the ejection of a fifth gas giant, I cannot see a way for Jupiter and Saturn to exchange positions. And I can't see a way to circularise their orbits after such an exchange.
How does this affect or is affected by our estimates of the age of the Sun and Solar System?
Fair enough question.
The answer is : not in the slightest.
As far as I understand, the best guide we have of the age of the Solar System is rocks on Earth used to estimate the age of Earth.
Your knowledge is incomplete - it is a LONG way from the state of the art in the 1960s, and since then we've acquired a lot more knowledge.
Once radiometric dating had reached a reasonable degree of accuracy - a few percent, instead of the 10-20 % of the early 1950s (I've got a copy of one of Holmes' 1950s papers, signed by the man himself), they did start looking at meteorites, and as techniques got more accurate and used smaller samples, looking at grains WITHIN meteorites. They found, fairly rapidly, that age estimates were variable (well, the solar system is an active place), but maximal ages were older than maximal ages for terrestrial samples, with a lot of spread. Some of the spread was obviously due to corrosion problems (the most easily recognised meteorites are iron-containing, which are obviously very corrodable), but many meteorites have complex internal structures, and these seemed to have differing ages.
In the late 1960s, they started to get lunar samples back from the Russian landers, thne the Apollo missions. These also showed ages comparable with or higher than the oldest (dientified) Earth samples.
As techniques improved (and sample sizes decreased) through the 1970s, the ages slowly pushed back, but a new sample source came into play : Antarctic meteorites. These were important because they have lower identification biases than previous techniques, which strongly favoured the unusual textures and compositions of the "iron" and "stony-iron" meteorites that dominated earlier collections. And as sample sizes for dating continued to fall from grammes to milligrammes to microgrammes, it became easier to measure the ages of the structures within the different components of meteorites. Also, with samples taken from within single grains, more complex atomic clocks (including extinct clocks) could be sampled to get the relative dating of events within a single rock, while the whole-rock measurements gave an age for the rock as a whole.
The consequence is that the state of the art (last time I looked - a few years ago now) is that the oldest known structures in meteorites are what are known as CAIs (Calcium-Aluminium-rich-Inclusions) which date to about 4600 Myr and were formed early in the disc stage of planet formation. A few million years later, the CAIs plus dust were collecting into kilometre scale bodies cemented with dust grains, which heated sufficiently to weld into the "stony" (and stony-iron and iron - much rarer) meteorites at around 4575 Myr. A few million years more and the inner "rocky planets are assembled and more or less complete.
A decade ago, the various estimates for the Earth added up to convenient "4567" Myr grand average. that conveniently memorable number didn't last long, but it has reached the point that people are now trying to detect the signal of things like the Moon-forming event. No-one has precise measurements of that - if the data is present, it's hanging around in the noise in the measurements at the moment. But we're getting there.
Our understanding of the age of the planets in the solar system are informed by measurements of rocks, not orbital models.
I've suggested that if they're common, they might explain the "dark matter" problem of cosmology:namely, a reservoir of matter around galaxies that is impossible to detect by normal means, but doesn't require any exotic, unverified forms of matter to explain.
This was a viable proposition in the late 1970s - as the "missing mass problem was going from "are our measurements correct" to "our measurements and our theories don't add up" - resulting in several surveys looking for evidence of cold, lumpy matter. In particular the search for MAssive Compact Halo Objects ("MACHO") was targeted at exactly this question.
MACHO didn't find anything like enough matter. It did find several interesting "transiting, free-flying planet" signals, whereas it would need to have hundreds or thousands to account for the missing mass. I think the programme is still running, but for constraining planetary populations, not explaining the cosmological problems.
There is a "thumbnail" (not a formal paper, but a good undergraduate level explanation) of the Pluto decision by one of TFA's authors (Hal Levison). I have always preferred the materials science POV for defining "planet" (i.e., it has self-gravitated to a rough sphere) over the IAU's complex criteria, but after reading Levison's "thumbnail" I am much less opposed to the IAU definition than I was 6 months ago. (For context, I've been interested in Planetary Science since the mid-80s, which includes this question.)
I'm surprised - almost astonished - that StartsWithABang didn't do this itself, and linked to Medium or Vice (I forget which is it's forte). I wonder if it's feeling well, or gets paid more by Forbes (the commercial link included).
I may well pay more attention to it's submissions now, instead of binning them on seeing the attribution.
People on planes already know they are dead if a hijacker takes over
People on planes NOW know that, whereas previously that would only be an individual concern ("thank fuck I used my Irish passport for this flight, not my British one ; I hope they take the British passport guy beside me" being the internal conversation) or a concern of fucked-up flight decisions by the hijackers (such as the plane which crashed out of fuel 20-odd miles short of the runway for an Indian Ocean island in the late 80s. I forget the flight number.) So no hijacker can plan on a compliant passenger body and will need far higher body counts. Dozens.
So, suicide bombers become a more effective use of opportunities.
Slashdot Mirror
Are the "general public" their audience?
I'm not a star wars fan, but I think that's MIDICHORIONS or something similar which you're confusing with MITOCHONDRIA (which are real things in our universe, and certainly do affect general fitness post-partum, and probably also affect fitness pre-partum.
I would be rather dubious about getting adequate quality images for OCR without controlling the lighting better. (I also wouldn't consider trying a task like this without pretty good OCR. that is near enough a solved problem these decades, given reasonable original images.)
Getting decent enough images to accurately render figures - graphs, or in one book I scanned previously, the tear-down/ re-build photos for the wheel hub on a broken car I owned. As presented, there is no effort at controlling the curvature of the pages. that is incredibly annoying to attempt to read, and is going to be highly destructive to attempts to OCR the images. Text size will vary along each line, along with the focus.
With a HP flat bed scanner, running a stack of open source OCR components, and manually turning the book and the pages, I could get 4 - 5 pages per minute, which was adequate. Otherwise, find a reliable scanning company in India, and post the books over there, if your time is more valuable than my off-shift time is.
As I estimated here, delivering atmosphere at one Chelyabinsk (-size meteorite) an hour, it would take hundreds of thousands to a million or so years to deliver the atmosphere needed.
That's not paranoid. Paranoia is an irrational fear. Your concerns are rational. You may be overreacting a little, but that's probably safer than under-reacting. I use double gloves for hydrofluoric acid, but not for general organics.
But what's the point about the cost of sending people there? Apart from the first few colonists - a few thousand - they'll breed their own inhabitants. why would they want poor foreign immigrants from a polluted or nearly uninhabitable planet like Earth will be in the thousands of years that the project would take.
Or ... were people thinking of dreams about the future being a substitute for dealing with current problems?
The answer doesn't matter. The steadily increasing heat output of the sun will render the Earth uninhabitable long before the red giant phase comes to pass.
What heats Io (and other Jovian and Saturnian satellites) is the change of forces on on the planet between those from Jupiter (Saturn) and the forces from the other satellites.
Tidal forces are generated by the steepness of the gravitational gradient across the orbit (which for a set planet is determined by the orbital radius), and the diameter of the satellite. The classical derivation requires you to calculate the orbital shape for a free-orbiting pebble at the sub-planetary point and the orbit for a free-orbiting pebble on the opposite side of the satellite. The two orbits would diverge. The stresses that this causes vary a small amount around a low eccentricity orbit, but for the Jovian (Saturnian) satellites, the change in proximity of the other satellites is far more significant than the simple Jovian tidal force.
Bulk rocks have density between 2.5 and 3.1. With compression in the depths that gets up to about 3.5. Clearly there must be something denser somewhere. After that, it's question of trying to match the bulk density and the distribution of mass to get the same figures. Which you do need to fly a probe past, and track it's path carefully. Though you could get the same data (more slowly) with multiple natural asteroids)
Putting probes onto the surface of Venus will tell us the density of the surface rocks. But they're a trivial part of the question. To get to 1% of the volume of the planet, you'd need to measure the density of the average rocks down to a depth of 20km. We can't do that on Earth without a global network of seismographs (to measure seismic propagation velocities, from which we can deduce the density, with some assumptions).
The profit margins in TREATING a person's disease are higher than those in CURING someone's disease. So you don't even attempt to cure people, just treat their symptoms.
Titan has a surface atmospheric pressure of 1 and a half times that of Earth. If the Earth's atmosphere can move solid grains around, then it is no surprise that titan's atmosphere can.
Actually, it is more surprising that the atmosphere of Mars (1/100the earth;s surface pressure) can produce dunes.
Just to clarify - the large majority of the personnel involved in the counting in the UK are not full-time election officials. Typically they are clerical staff of the local council, and are paid overtime for the (normally out of hours) work involved, and allowed time off in lieu (if a recount goes on to 7 in the morning).
Some nations - e.g. Scotland - just don't bother with the overnight count. Counting is done in office hours the next day, by the normal clerical staff.
Your lack of conviction is noted. Have fun getting it past a funding allocation committee.
People spent decades working through these arguments in the 1970s and 1980s, designing experiments and instruments to investigate exactly these questions, then publishing the details. That wheel has been thoroughly investigated and found to be circular, to within a couple of % (better than the wheels on your car probably). To try another metaphor - that dwarf is standing there, asking you to climb onto it's shoulders so you can see further.
Perhaps if you didn't live in the US, you might have a different attitude. Which doesn't make you wrong. Nor does being in America make you right, contrary to much American internal propaganda.
This is incorrect. What marched through the inner solar system was a series of small-number resonances (1:2, 2:3, 2:5, etc) with the orbits of (proto-)Jupiter and (proto-)Saturn, as the planets moved by considerably smaller amounts.
The migration of those resonant orbits disturbed the orbits of smaller bodies, which then interact (collide) with other bodies and amongst themselves, resulting in accretion or ejection.
Both Jupiter and Saturn produce resonances, though the Jovian ones are much the stronger.
Without the ejection of a fifth gas giant, I cannot see a way for Jupiter and Saturn to exchange positions. And I can't see a way to circularise their orbits after such an exchange.
Fair enough question.
The answer is : not in the slightest.
Your knowledge is incomplete - it is a LONG way from the state of the art in the 1960s, and since then we've acquired a lot more knowledge.
Once radiometric dating had reached a reasonable degree of accuracy - a few percent, instead of the 10-20 % of the early 1950s (I've got a copy of one of Holmes' 1950s papers, signed by the man himself), they did start looking at meteorites, and as techniques got more accurate and used smaller samples, looking at grains WITHIN meteorites. They found, fairly rapidly, that age estimates were variable (well, the solar system is an active place), but maximal ages were older than maximal ages for terrestrial samples, with a lot of spread. Some of the spread was obviously due to corrosion problems (the most easily recognised meteorites are iron-containing, which are obviously very corrodable), but many meteorites have complex internal structures, and these seemed to have differing ages.
In the late 1960s, they started to get lunar samples back from the Russian landers, thne the Apollo missions. These also showed ages comparable with or higher than the oldest (dientified) Earth samples.
As techniques improved (and sample sizes decreased) through the 1970s, the ages slowly pushed back, but a new sample source came into play : Antarctic meteorites. These were important because they have lower identification biases than previous techniques, which strongly favoured the unusual textures and compositions of the "iron" and "stony-iron" meteorites that dominated earlier collections. And as sample sizes for dating continued to fall from grammes to milligrammes to microgrammes, it became easier to measure the ages of the structures within the different components of meteorites. Also, with samples taken from within single grains, more complex atomic clocks (including extinct clocks) could be sampled to get the relative dating of events within a single rock, while the whole-rock measurements gave an age for the rock as a whole.
The consequence is that the state of the art (last time I looked - a few years ago now) is that the oldest known structures in meteorites are what are known as CAIs (Calcium-Aluminium-rich-Inclusions) which date to about 4600 Myr and were formed early in the disc stage of planet formation. A few million years later, the CAIs plus dust were collecting into kilometre scale bodies cemented with dust grains, which heated sufficiently to weld into the "stony" (and stony-iron and iron - much rarer) meteorites at around 4575 Myr. A few million years more and the inner "rocky planets are assembled and more or less complete.
A decade ago, the various estimates for the Earth added up to convenient "4567" Myr grand average. that conveniently memorable number didn't last long, but it has reached the point that people are now trying to detect the signal of things like the Moon-forming event. No-one has precise measurements of that - if the data is present, it's hanging around in the noise in the measurements at the moment. But we're getting there.
Our understanding of the age of the planets in the solar system are informed by measurements of rocks, not orbital models.
This was a viable proposition in the late 1970s - as the "missing mass problem was going from "are our measurements correct" to "our measurements and our theories don't add up" - resulting in several surveys looking for evidence of cold, lumpy matter. In particular the search for MAssive Compact Halo Objects ("MACHO") was targeted at exactly this question.
MACHO didn't find anything like enough matter. It did find several interesting "transiting, free-flying planet" signals, whereas it would need to have hundreds or thousands to account for the missing mass. I think the programme is still running, but for constraining planetary populations, not explaining the cosmological problems.
I do not understand how you could make this assertion, if you actually listened to the arguments at the time (I did).
Levison's "thumbnail" ; he used the term "hand waving" ; [SHRUG].
I may well pay more attention to it's submissions now, instead of binning them on seeing the attribution.
People on planes NOW know that, whereas previously that would only be an individual concern ("thank fuck I used my Irish passport for this flight, not my British one ; I hope they take the British passport guy beside me" being the internal conversation) or a concern of fucked-up flight decisions by the hijackers (such as the plane which crashed out of fuel 20-odd miles short of the runway for an Indian Ocean island in the late 80s. I forget the flight number.) So no hijacker can plan on a compliant passenger body and will need far higher body counts. Dozens.
So, suicide bombers become a more effective use of opportunities.
So, that would be approximately one different browser and work flow for every user.
Agreed. I think that was the writer's intention.
It's an unusual brain-fart.
That'll be in the 802.11/q protocol.
Oblig XKCD : http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/st...
That would be true if the walls of the test chamber were perfect mirrors. Which is pretty unlikely.