"People should not assume that the Apollo lunar soil samples remain representative of soils found in the natural environment of the moon, especially if they have been exposed to air," she told Space.com via email. "In addition to particle size distribution, other geotechnical properties (such as strength and cohesion) must also have changed. Also, for example, water found in the sample might be taken to be lunar in origin when in fact it is the result of contamination."
If samples stored in nitrogen
"Based on other evidence, it's possible that even the samples stored in nitrogen may be compromised," Cooper said.
If samples stored in nitrogen may be compromised the what samples are definitely not compromised? From the second reference:
Although this material has been isolated in vacuum-packed bottles, it is now unusable for detailed chemical or mechanical analysis – the gritty particles deteriorated the knife-edge indium seals of the vacuum bottles; air has slowly leaked in.
It does not matter what gas the samples were stored in if air leaks in. The air will mil with the gas and contaminate the sample. How about this one;
The various rocks and soil samples were placed in “rock boxes.” These were sealed at 10-12 torr on the Moon, only to be found to be at 1 atmosphere when opened in the Lunar Receiving Lab (LRL) at Johnson Space Center in Houston. [Author L.A. Taylor was in the LRL at that time.] The presence of the ‘clinging’ lunar dust had made the indium, knife-edge seals fail. This dust was so pervasive that no lunar rock boxes from any of the 6 Apollo missions to the Moon ever maintained their lunar vacuum -- they all leaked.
Notice this NASA paper also makes no mention of nitrogen. How about this one;
Another indicator is that all of the environmental sample and gas sample seals failed because of dust. By the time they reached earth the samples were so contaminated as to be worthless.
Maybe you should learn to use Google before attacking someone.
Where will the materials that we need to inoculate the media with come from. If it is from Earth it would be a lot of weight to transport to Mars and would need to be resupplied regularly.
Plants don't grow well in distilled water. Hydroponics requires a lot of fertilizer in the water to allow growth. Feces in is a limited supply.The nutrients have to come from somewhere.
Mr. Fry is eloquent yet very far off on the motivations and the thoughts of many so-call pedants. We pedants are not all alike. I, for one, have no problem with verbing nouns. That would be a use for a current word for an action that has not before existed. I have no issue with "friending" as that means to publicly designate someone as a friend in social media. It is a new action and we may as well use a the most appropriate word to describe it.
What I have issue with is incorrect use of language when it is just as easy to use the correct term. I have an invisible disorder called Asperger syndrome. One of the aspects can be best described as follows; "We can handle the unexpected well but we have trouble with the other than expected. My best way to describe it is in the case of a driving on a one way street. If a child runs out from behind a car that it unexpected and I can deal with it. If I see a car coming at me that is other than expected and can freak me out. When I am reading something and I notice a miss-uses word I automatically stop reading and start analyzing the sentence. It is correct? Have I made the same mistake? Is the writer doing this for a reason? The main point is that it is not a choice for me. It just happens. What Mr. Fry attributes as a need to feel superior is more of a need to be able to stay reading without stumbling over poor grammar.
Would you use "less sand?" I suspect that you would, yet the word "sand" can have a plural form:
Notice "less sand" uses the singular form for "sand" while the OP used the plural for of lawyer. Do you think "less sands" is correct? The problem is using less and the singular/uncountable form.
Another point is that "sands" means and expanse of sand and is not a direct plural meaning many pieces of sand. "Lawyers" does not mean an expanse of lawyers therefore there is no similarity. As for the number of lawyers being uncountable that is untrue. All countable objects have an upper limit. The upper limit on the number of lawyers is the number of people on earth. Therefore the number of lawyers is countable.
The problem is that the possibility of being caught is near zero so any small thrill is enough of an incentive. The challenge of hitting an aircraft with a laser is enough of a thrill for some people and yes they are assholes. No matter how big the fine there will still be people who believe they will never get caught.
Another issue is that you are assuming people use valid risk assessment before doing things. For many people that is a false assumption as in "Hey Bubba, hold my beer and watch this."
Here are a couple of problems with that. 1. It is difficult to find the suspect as they could be in a few square mile area. 2. The damage has already been done so prosecution may not help the victims. Many people will risk the consequences if the probability of getting caught is low enough.
The difference between the "humans" and the "elephants" answers shows that 50% of the "creationists" are just parroting the church's views when talking about humans but when they put their mind in gear, as in the "elephant" question, that actually believe in evolution.
Equating deportation to fingerprinting is just stupid. They are in no way similar. Deportation has a major long term effect on a person's life. Fingerprints? Not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry I fouled up on the link in the third reference. Where is your "other evidence"?
From the first reference:
"People should not assume that the Apollo lunar soil samples remain representative of soils found in the natural environment of the moon, especially if they have been exposed to air," she told Space.com via email. "In addition to particle size distribution, other geotechnical properties (such as strength and cohesion) must also have changed. Also, for example, water found in the sample might be taken to be lunar in origin when in fact it is the result of contamination."
If samples stored in nitrogen
"Based on other evidence, it's possible that even the samples stored in nitrogen may be compromised," Cooper said.
If samples stored in nitrogen may be compromised the what samples are definitely not compromised?
From the second reference:
Although this material has been isolated in vacuum-packed bottles, it is now unusable for detailed chemical or mechanical analysis – the gritty particles deteriorated the knife-edge indium seals of the vacuum bottles; air has slowly leaked in.
It does not matter what gas the samples were stored in if air leaks in. The air will mil with the gas and contaminate the sample.
How about this one;
The various rocks and soil samples were placed in “rock boxes.” These were sealed at 10-12 torr on the Moon, only to be found to be at 1 atmosphere
when opened in the Lunar Receiving Lab (LRL) at Johnson Space Center in Houston. [Author L.A. Taylor was in
the LRL at that time.] The presence of the ‘clinging’ lunar dust had made the indium, knife-edge seals fail. This
dust was so pervasive that no lunar rock boxes from any of the 6 Apollo missions to the Moon ever maintained their
lunar vacuum -- they all leaked.
Notice this NASA paper also makes no mention of nitrogen.
How about this one;
Another indicator is that all of the environmental sample and gas sample seals failed because of dust. By the time they reached earth the
samples were so contaminated as to be worthless.
Maybe you should learn to use Google before attacking someone.
Where will the materials that we need to inoculate the media with come from. If it is from Earth it would be a lot of weight to transport to Mars and would need to be resupplied regularly.
In his system, you put the same measured amount of fertilizer on the plants every week.
Where will this highly refined fertilizer come from on Mars?
Plants don't grow well in distilled water. Hydroponics requires a lot of fertilizer in the water to allow growth. Feces in is a limited supply.The nutrients have to come from somewhere.
Reference and another
The problem with hydroponics is that all nutrients have to be added to the water. Plants do not grow well in distilled water.
Mr. Fry is eloquent yet very far off on the motivations and the thoughts of many so-call pedants. We pedants are not all alike. I, for one, have no problem with verbing nouns. That would be a use for a current word for an action that has not before existed. I have no issue with "friending" as that means to publicly designate someone as a friend in social media. It is a new action and we may as well use a the most appropriate word to describe it.
What I have issue with is incorrect use of language when it is just as easy to use the correct term. I have an invisible disorder called Asperger syndrome. One of the aspects can be best described as follows; "We can handle the unexpected well but we have trouble with the other than expected. My best way to describe it is in the case of a driving on a one way street. If a child runs out from behind a car that it unexpected and I can deal with it. If I see a car coming at me that is other than expected and can freak me out. When I am reading something and I notice a miss-uses word I automatically stop reading and start analyzing the sentence. It is correct? Have I made the same mistake? Is the writer doing this for a reason? The main point is that it is not a choice for me. It just happens. What Mr. Fry attributes as a need to feel superior is more of a need to be able to stay reading without stumbling over poor grammar.
What about a world where a single language does not drift in so many directions that people can no longer understand each other.
Would you use "less sand?" I suspect that you would, yet the word "sand" can have a plural form:
Notice "less sand" uses the singular form for "sand" while the OP used the plural for of lawyer. Do you think "less sands" is correct? The problem is using less and the singular/uncountable form.
Another point is that "sands" means and expanse of sand and is not a direct plural meaning many pieces of sand. "Lawyers" does not mean an expanse of lawyers therefore there is no similarity. As for the number of lawyers being uncountable that is untrue. All countable objects have an upper limit. The upper limit on the number of lawyers is the number of people on earth. Therefore the number of lawyers is countable.
DOJ is smart enough to clone the phone first.
According to a couple of reports he was arrested in Miami.
What I was attempting to point out is that crime prevention is more useful that prosecution.
The problem is that the possibility of being caught is near zero so any small thrill is enough of an incentive. The challenge of hitting an aircraft with a laser is enough of a thrill for some people and yes they are assholes. No matter how big the fine there will still be people who believe they will never get caught.
Another issue is that you are assuming people use valid risk assessment before doing things. For many people that is a false assumption as in "Hey Bubba, hold my beer and watch this."
"Something is being used in a bad way! BAN IT!"
Here are a couple of problems with that.
1. It is difficult to find the suspect as they could be in a few square mile area.
2. The damage has already been done so prosecution may not help the victims.
Many people will risk the consequences if the probability of getting caught is low enough.
The difference between the "humans" and the "elephants" answers shows that 50% of the "creationists" are just parroting the church's views when talking about humans but when they put their mind in gear, as in the "elephant" question, that actually believe in evolution.
The services are either too scared that their wouldn't be an outcry or they're just too greedy to give up revenue in one market.
Or both.
Equating deportation to fingerprinting is just stupid. They are in no way similar. Deportation has a major long term effect on a person's life. Fingerprints? Not so much.
This is the actual image of the cord being replaced by Microsoft.
I realize you have the "Government bad" mind set but accuracy is important. You may as well blame the right department.
Wrong. The Affordable Care Act (some call it Obamacare) is administered by the Health and Human Services Department.
The app requires taxpayer information such as name, Social Security number, date of birth and full address.
It was not brute force. They had a lot more information about the person to get the PIN.
If the eventual 500 Mw plant will provide power for 1.1 million people that means that the average person uses 455 watts. That is not a lot of power.
Nine billion dollars and ongoing maintenance costs is free energy, lol.