Actualyy, I find it a good question for the simple reason that if you spin an atom fast enough it becomes pear-shape. This is in part because they have internal structure. Thus, knowing if other shapes are possible/expected under any given condition tells you if electrons are believed to have internal structure or not and what that internal structure might be if one is believed.
Internal structure is sensible to assume since there must be Higgs bosons to provide mass and something else to provide charge. Since we know internal structures can be made to distort, it is equally sensible to ask how, when and what. This makes Relic's reply somewhat... odd, as well as a little OTT.
Even if we didn't assume that, we know that in physics all shapes are a result of minimum energy state. An object will always prefer the lowest energy state available to it. There is nothing in physics that requires this to be a sphere, and indeed in physics there are quite a number of shapes that are lowest-energy for some condition or another.
Finally, it is a truism that no scientist could even begin to function without a childlike curiosity and sense of wonder. Those in scientific jobs who lack such traits are not scientists, they are mere cataloguers of findings. But since when have they been the exclusive owners of adult curiosity? The lack of it is never good and those with lives where curiosity is discouraged are certainly living below their potential.
So long as you don't know how fast it is moving, knowing where it is is fine. The exact rule is that the product of the level of uncertainty of the variables is a constant, not that the variables have to be unknown.
Good communications, regardless of whether it is from robots or humans, has always been the deciding factor between a success story and a disaster. The 9 mins, 30 secs delay to get from Mars to Earth and then the same in reverse means real-time assisntance is impossible. Having human assistants in orbit or on the ground reduces the delay to practically nothing. Those 19 minutes saved have the potential to salvage a mission.
Further, most mission-killers are minor failures. A failed motor, a sand trap, an exhausted RTG, dead batteries or a blocked solar panel. A human could fix any of these. The human wouldn't be doing the grunt-work, the human would be enabling the robots to do the grunt-work in as safe and protected a manner as possible. Worker safety isn't just about avoiding lawsuits or being ethical, it's also about getting better-quality work in less time for less expense in the long run.
Then there's the experiments themselves. A rover can't replace a damaged experiment module or upgrade a module with something more advanced later on. Humans can do that FOR a rover at much less cost and in far less time than building a new rover from scratch. There may also be experiments that you want to occasionally run that require more power than the rover's batteries can provide but where lugging around the extra batteries needed would be impractical. No problem. Humans go to the rover and plug in an external power supply.
Human-assisted robots are, by far, the best option for exploration of these kinds of worlds.
Humans in space are also good for deep-space probes. The Voyager and Pioneer probes, excellent demonstrations of success, had problems after launch. In one case, a radio antenna didn't unfurl properly. I seem to recall there was a glitch in an experiment in another. Absolutely nothing for a human in orbit to fix. The former problem caused slower transmission speeds to be used, again costing us valuable data. As successful as they were, they could have been twice that with human assistants.
(Even The Doctor knows how valuable human assistants are. And that, surely, is the clincher.)
Manned exploration is largely irrelevant. What is very relevant is the speed of light. A manned outpost on Mars, or indeed anywhere in space near Mars, would be able to collect data real-time, detect obstacles that the robots aren't programmed to avoid, and could potentially repair those robots when they become disabled.
What is also relevant is bandwidth. Because of all the error-correction needed to salvage data from deep-space communications, the power limitations involved and the heavy restrictions on what you can shove into radiation-resistant ICs, the data that can be transmitted will be a fraction of what could potentially be collected. If, instead of trying to transmit it directly back to Earth, it was transmitted to an orbital station that can physically return to Earth, the volume of data these missions can collect skyrockets.
Sure, the orbital has no requirement to be manned for the bandwidth reason, but it does when considering the reaction time reason. Near-zero latency, as opposed to 9 minutes and 30 seconds. If you've ever bogged down a car in a few seconds of spinning wheels in mud, imagine what almost 10 minutes of spinning the wheels would do. It also matters for the maintenance reason. Spirit's motor is jammed? No prob, here's a spare. Unsure if the battery will last through winter? An RTG and crocodile clips. Timmy's fallen down a well? Not my problem, this is Mars.
You'd want to make a MOSIX cluster of Beowulf clusters, so as to allow for each cluster to appear as a node without any conflicts. To make it 3D, you'd use a Kerrighed cluster of MOSIX clusters of Beowulf clusters.
Everyone is entitled to one fantastical hope beyond any possibility of it actually coming to pass. For example, there are still people on Slashdot who hope to form relationships or understand the more obscure Doonesbury cartoons.
We don't have enough data. Radioactive caesium in the soil can require wholesale decontamination because it's readily taken up by plants and makes its way into the food chain. Can. If it's all in the topsoil and you get a cloudburst, you're minus the topsoil and the problem. The newspapers aren't exactly publishing the levels of Americium or Polonium. Nor is there a vast amount of data on just how deep some of the underground contamination was and what the geology is like. If the contaminants are more likely to be flushed out to sea or trapped by naturally-occuring filters, it's a very different situation from if they're going to constantly cycle within living organisms.
Well, yes, since no material can exist at absolute zero, all materials emit some form of radiation. And, yes, they aren't all equally dangerous. The danger also varies with context. Alpha particles are of no particular significance externally, but an alpha emitter that is ingested can cause serious damage. A high energy gamma emitter is usually nasty no matter where it is. You've also further complications (radioisotopes can also be toxic in and of themselves, regardless of the radiation hazard, as can their daughter products whether those are radioisotopes or not).
It isn't necessary to qualify, or at least it shouldn't be because all of that is common knowledge.
As I mentioned elsewhere, though, there are fanbois who confuse healthy skepticism with unhealthy paranoia, thus becoming paranoid and delusional themselves. Any true nuclear proponent is a proponent of the technology and the science, not any given implementation or any given implementor.
The heat has to be caused by the level of neutrons striking fissile material. It's the only source of energy beyond the natural decay. Ergo, to reduce the heat is going to require absorbing neutrons. At 200'C, the water will turn to steam but the boron won't be doing anything, giving you a nice coating. It might do something, depends on what it's like inside.
True enough. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. However, in this case, this is the more useful quote: Each fact is suggestive in itself. Together they have a cumulative force.
Yeah, that was fairly obvious. You don't need to be a nuclear scientist (just someone who knows what historical accidents have been significant, which ones haven't, and what made the difference) to realize that TEPCO weren't being honest, but it helps if you are to understand what they were being dishonest about.
What bothers me, more than TEPCOs dishonesty (which, frankly, is only to be expected when a company relies on image as much or more than products), is the number of people here who went around marking those questioning TEPCO statements in previous discussions as trolls. Sorry, but the science doesn't leave much room for debate. It seemed to be mostly by pro-nuclear fanbois who failed to understand you could be ok with the technology but suspicious of the implementors. I hope they are now willing to admit their errors and apologise for their abuse of the moderation system.
If you can find this on the radio, I'd be impressed. Same with these guys or these. Radio just doesn't play the stuff I listen to. Ever.
Now, your point of not judging other people's music, that I can agree with 100%. Except for rap, though I suppose I'll allow twoexceptions, so I guess it's less a rule and more an opinion. Yeah, I quite agree that it's their life, their choice in music, etc. I'm not a fan of Gaga but that doesn't give me any right to judge those who are. I do question the inclusion of some of Gaga's more... extreme work on the kid's compilation albums advertised on Cartoon Network - the one place not showing cartoons any more. That doesn't feel right. But, hey, I didn't object to The Strangler's Golden Brown when a kid, so what do I know?
Well, to allay some of your concerns, AAAA DNS records will be returned over IPv4, so DNS should be exactly the same speed as it has always been (which isn't saying much, I agree...).
Now, tunnels vs native is a bit more of an issue. Hurricane Electric provide init scripts to set up/remove the tunnels, so when you get native IPv6 you just remove those scripts.
As for the level of service gain, that's a catch-22. There's no users because there's no services. There's no services because there's no users. This should have been boostrapped by the 6Bone working group far, far better.
The Japanese have already started manufacturing the televisions, so presumably they're working on replacement eye surgery for the remainder of the run-up. It can't be cyberpunk-style jacks, as you wouldn't need a tv for those.
Japanese domestic television is due to switch to a 7680x4320 at 60 frames per second format in 2020. Do not be surprised if the cable companies there seriously debate multi-terabit cables at least between studios and archives or distribution points. If you increase the quality to HDR (32bpp or greater), you start needing these kinds of speeds to the home.
The British version of the Library of Congress would be the combination of the National Archives and the British Library. Given the BBC partly functions in the manner of the FCC, you may need to include the BBC archives in there as well. The sum total of these three collections probably exceeds the Library of Congress but there's no collective name for all of this information.
You've got to remember that they're descended from the Vikings. If you look at the syllables in Vatnajokull, they're all something you could get out between sword swings. Evolution would have taken its course and all longer syllables would have died out.
It's basically tcpwrappers implemented as an IPTables facility, only without quite as much control over what external sources can do the opening. It's interesting but as IPTables is due to be replaced anyway, it's a pointless enhancement that simply wastes developer time.
IPTables rules can not only be per-application, per-user and per-instance, or per any definable group thereof (intserv), the rules themselves can contain whatever conditions you like (including checks for packet labels, layer 7 checks, etc). The main question I have to ask is why Red Hat still uses IPTables rather than nf-HiPAC or nftables, the two competing replacement stacks. IPTables is long-in-the-tooth and can't compete on performance or flexibility with the alternatives, so extending IPTables' functionality (rather than switching to something that already provides the facility and spending those resources on development) seems pointless and a little naive.
If you're going to spend developer time and dollars on a capability, always always always look 2-5 years ahead rather than 2-5 years behind.
Slashdot Mirror
Actualyy, I find it a good question for the simple reason that if you spin an atom fast enough it becomes pear-shape. This is in part because they have internal structure. Thus, knowing if other shapes are possible/expected under any given condition tells you if electrons are believed to have internal structure or not and what that internal structure might be if one is believed.
Internal structure is sensible to assume since there must be Higgs bosons to provide mass and something else to provide charge. Since we know internal structures can be made to distort, it is equally sensible to ask how, when and what. This makes Relic's reply somewhat... odd, as well as a little OTT.
Even if we didn't assume that, we know that in physics all shapes are a result of minimum energy state. An object will always prefer the lowest energy state available to it. There is nothing in physics that requires this to be a sphere, and indeed in physics there are quite a number of shapes that are lowest-energy for some condition or another.
Finally, it is a truism that no scientist could even begin to function without a childlike curiosity and sense of wonder. Those in scientific jobs who lack such traits are not scientists, they are mere cataloguers of findings. But since when have they been the exclusive owners of adult curiosity? The lack of it is never good and those with lives where curiosity is discouraged are certainly living below their potential.
So long as you don't know how fast it is moving, knowing where it is is fine. The exact rule is that the product of the level of uncertainty of the variables is a constant, not that the variables have to be unknown.
Good communications, regardless of whether it is from robots or humans, has always been the deciding factor between a success story and a disaster. The 9 mins, 30 secs delay to get from Mars to Earth and then the same in reverse means real-time assisntance is impossible. Having human assistants in orbit or on the ground reduces the delay to practically nothing. Those 19 minutes saved have the potential to salvage a mission.
Further, most mission-killers are minor failures. A failed motor, a sand trap, an exhausted RTG, dead batteries or a blocked solar panel. A human could fix any of these. The human wouldn't be doing the grunt-work, the human would be enabling the robots to do the grunt-work in as safe and protected a manner as possible. Worker safety isn't just about avoiding lawsuits or being ethical, it's also about getting better-quality work in less time for less expense in the long run.
Then there's the experiments themselves. A rover can't replace a damaged experiment module or upgrade a module with something more advanced later on. Humans can do that FOR a rover at much less cost and in far less time than building a new rover from scratch. There may also be experiments that you want to occasionally run that require more power than the rover's batteries can provide but where lugging around the extra batteries needed would be impractical. No problem. Humans go to the rover and plug in an external power supply.
Human-assisted robots are, by far, the best option for exploration of these kinds of worlds.
Humans in space are also good for deep-space probes. The Voyager and Pioneer probes, excellent demonstrations of success, had problems after launch. In one case, a radio antenna didn't unfurl properly. I seem to recall there was a glitch in an experiment in another. Absolutely nothing for a human in orbit to fix. The former problem caused slower transmission speeds to be used, again costing us valuable data. As successful as they were, they could have been twice that with human assistants.
(Even The Doctor knows how valuable human assistants are. And that, surely, is the clincher.)
Manned exploration is largely irrelevant. What is very relevant is the speed of light. A manned outpost on Mars, or indeed anywhere in space near Mars, would be able to collect data real-time, detect obstacles that the robots aren't programmed to avoid, and could potentially repair those robots when they become disabled.
What is also relevant is bandwidth. Because of all the error-correction needed to salvage data from deep-space communications, the power limitations involved and the heavy restrictions on what you can shove into radiation-resistant ICs, the data that can be transmitted will be a fraction of what could potentially be collected. If, instead of trying to transmit it directly back to Earth, it was transmitted to an orbital station that can physically return to Earth, the volume of data these missions can collect skyrockets.
Sure, the orbital has no requirement to be manned for the bandwidth reason, but it does when considering the reaction time reason. Near-zero latency, as opposed to 9 minutes and 30 seconds. If you've ever bogged down a car in a few seconds of spinning wheels in mud, imagine what almost 10 minutes of spinning the wheels would do. It also matters for the maintenance reason. Spirit's motor is jammed? No prob, here's a spare. Unsure if the battery will last through winter? An RTG and crocodile clips. Timmy's fallen down a well? Not my problem, this is Mars.
Occam is higher-level than C or Fortran, and it should be possible to adapt Erlang to parallelize across a cluster.
You'd want to make a MOSIX cluster of Beowulf clusters, so as to allow for each cluster to appear as a node without any conflicts. To make it 3D, you'd use a Kerrighed cluster of MOSIX clusters of Beowulf clusters.
If the owners of large amounts of bitcoin own shares in electricity generating companies, it's a great source of double income.
Everyone is entitled to one fantastical hope beyond any possibility of it actually coming to pass. For example, there are still people on Slashdot who hope to form relationships or understand the more obscure Doonesbury cartoons.
We don't have enough data. Radioactive caesium in the soil can require wholesale decontamination because it's readily taken up by plants and makes its way into the food chain. Can. If it's all in the topsoil and you get a cloudburst, you're minus the topsoil and the problem. The newspapers aren't exactly publishing the levels of Americium or Polonium. Nor is there a vast amount of data on just how deep some of the underground contamination was and what the geology is like. If the contaminants are more likely to be flushed out to sea or trapped by naturally-occuring filters, it's a very different situation from if they're going to constantly cycle within living organisms.
Well, yes, since no material can exist at absolute zero, all materials emit some form of radiation. And, yes, they aren't all equally dangerous. The danger also varies with context. Alpha particles are of no particular significance externally, but an alpha emitter that is ingested can cause serious damage. A high energy gamma emitter is usually nasty no matter where it is. You've also further complications (radioisotopes can also be toxic in and of themselves, regardless of the radiation hazard, as can their daughter products whether those are radioisotopes or not).
It isn't necessary to qualify, or at least it shouldn't be because all of that is common knowledge.
As I mentioned elsewhere, though, there are fanbois who confuse healthy skepticism with unhealthy paranoia, thus becoming paranoid and delusional themselves. Any true nuclear proponent is a proponent of the technology and the science, not any given implementation or any given implementor.
The heat has to be caused by the level of neutrons striking fissile material. It's the only source of energy beyond the natural decay. Ergo, to reduce the heat is going to require absorbing neutrons. At 200'C, the water will turn to steam but the boron won't be doing anything, giving you a nice coating. It might do something, depends on what it's like inside.
True enough. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. However, in this case, this is the more useful quote: Each fact is suggestive in itself. Together they have a cumulative force.
Yeah, that was fairly obvious. You don't need to be a nuclear scientist (just someone who knows what historical accidents have been significant, which ones haven't, and what made the difference) to realize that TEPCO weren't being honest, but it helps if you are to understand what they were being dishonest about.
What bothers me, more than TEPCOs dishonesty (which, frankly, is only to be expected when a company relies on image as much or more than products), is the number of people here who went around marking those questioning TEPCO statements in previous discussions as trolls. Sorry, but the science doesn't leave much room for debate. It seemed to be mostly by pro-nuclear fanbois who failed to understand you could be ok with the technology but suspicious of the implementors. I hope they are now willing to admit their errors and apologise for their abuse of the moderation system.
If you can find this on the radio, I'd be impressed. Same with these guys or these. Radio just doesn't play the stuff I listen to. Ever.
Now, your point of not judging other people's music, that I can agree with 100%. Except for rap, though I suppose I'll allow two exceptions, so I guess it's less a rule and more an opinion. Yeah, I quite agree that it's their life, their choice in music, etc. I'm not a fan of Gaga but that doesn't give me any right to judge those who are. I do question the inclusion of some of Gaga's more... extreme work on the kid's compilation albums advertised on Cartoon Network - the one place not showing cartoons any more. That doesn't feel right. But, hey, I didn't object to The Strangler's Golden Brown when a kid, so what do I know?
Well, to allay some of your concerns, AAAA DNS records will be returned over IPv4, so DNS should be exactly the same speed as it has always been (which isn't saying much, I agree...).
Now, tunnels vs native is a bit more of an issue. Hurricane Electric provide init scripts to set up/remove the tunnels, so when you get native IPv6 you just remove those scripts.
As for the level of service gain, that's a catch-22. There's no users because there's no services. There's no services because there's no users. This should have been boostrapped by the 6Bone working group far, far better.
Just because Linus is god doesn't mean he knows everything.
Nonononono!
It was settled in court that SCO patented Linux 2.7. We can't infringe on that and have to go to Linux 2.8.
The Linux virtual machine already does this.
The Japanese have already started manufacturing the televisions, so presumably they're working on replacement eye surgery for the remainder of the run-up. It can't be cyberpunk-style jacks, as you wouldn't need a tv for those.
Japanese domestic television is due to switch to a 7680x4320 at 60 frames per second format in 2020. Do not be surprised if the cable companies there seriously debate multi-terabit cables at least between studios and archives or distribution points. If you increase the quality to HDR (32bpp or greater), you start needing these kinds of speeds to the home.
The British version of the Library of Congress would be the combination of the National Archives and the British Library. Given the BBC partly functions in the manner of the FCC, you may need to include the BBC archives in there as well. The sum total of these three collections probably exceeds the Library of Congress but there's no collective name for all of this information.
If you only consider the paper materials, it would be. But after you factor in porn and torrented movies, you end up with quite a lot of information.
You've got to remember that they're descended from the Vikings. If you look at the syllables in Vatnajokull, they're all something you could get out between sword swings. Evolution would have taken its course and all longer syllables would have died out.
It's basically tcpwrappers implemented as an IPTables facility, only without quite as much control over what external sources can do the opening. It's interesting but as IPTables is due to be replaced anyway, it's a pointless enhancement that simply wastes developer time.
IPTables rules can not only be per-application, per-user and per-instance, or per any definable group thereof (intserv), the rules themselves can contain whatever conditions you like (including checks for packet labels, layer 7 checks, etc). The main question I have to ask is why Red Hat still uses IPTables rather than nf-HiPAC or nftables, the two competing replacement stacks. IPTables is long-in-the-tooth and can't compete on performance or flexibility with the alternatives, so extending IPTables' functionality (rather than switching to something that already provides the facility and spending those resources on development) seems pointless and a little naive.
If you're going to spend developer time and dollars on a capability, always always always look 2-5 years ahead rather than 2-5 years behind.