On a "good" sail the surface is very reflective. The force that propels the spacecraft is the sum of two vectors; one pointing from the sun to the spacecraft, and a second for the reflected radiation leaving the sail. So you can steer the spacecraft by shortening one side and lengthening the other side of the says attaching the sail to the spacecraft, redirecting the outgoing vector. Or do something similar (e.g. reorient segments rather than the whole sail).
It's more likely that the flight engineers would just add course corrections in (i.e. change the sail orientation to redirect the force) if they had a specific target in the Oort cloud in mind.
Just as small errors due to GR get magnified over the long trajectory, so do small corrections get magnified if made early enough. And, as one earlier commenter noted, a million km isn't much of anything at these distances.
It is covered in many first year college physics courses. While that does not cover the hoards of science ignorant in the populous, it is certainly a larger sample than the science fiction reading population (though there is significant overlap) -- or that group plus one.
Were it my code, I'd be a bit ticked off that it was used this way without accreditation. I agree that it's okay to use the code, since the author did not include a license restricting use (here I'm assuming there is no blanket "Submitted text belongs to submitter" statement at the web site -- and I doubt those would be enforceable anyway), but IMO it's really just good form to give credit to the source for anything that is non-trivial. Taking someone else's work and making it look like your own, even if only passively by leaving off a reference, is just a very poor practice. And it potentially makes maintenance more difficult, since if a problem arises in the code, the reference to the original source could prove quite useful in the debugging process.
And yes, I do write code for a commercial venture, and I do practice what I preach here.
Yes, that piece of the statistics is certainly problematic. But the real point here is that the artists actually get to see a significant return on their work that would otherwise go into the coffers of the recording execs. The quoted numbers ($6 to $10 million) sound like a lot more than they'd see using traditional methods, unless they are a lot better known than it appears from the/. messages. (I haven't heard of them before, but they aren't in a genre I typically listen to.)
"...that global warming is caused by human activity."
This statement is the one that really irritates me. I can understand -- and disagree with, but understand -- the folks that argue that the Earth isn't warming, citing periodic temperature fluctuations in the argument. But once we agree that the warming is happening, for whatever cause, we should look at the consequences of that warming, and if the consequences are negative, take actions to correct things. Politics may enter in making the call about whether the consequences are negative, but I tend to think that they are.
Given that we can agree that we'd like to correct the warming trend, we can either decide that nothing we can do will have any effect and just give up, or we can look for causes that we can control, and try to apply those controls to reduce the effects of the warming trend. I prefer the latter approach. So once a warming trend is granted as a premise -- after all, the facts do appear to support that premise -- the next step should be to see if there are actions that we can take accordingly.
There is a high correlation in the data between man-made pollutants and the warming trend. (Here's another place you may disagree, but if you do grant this piece, the rest of the argument follows, I think.) Now correlation is not the same thing as causation, but it is a very apparent trend in the data. Given that and the known health benefits of reducing emissions (I think we can agree on that point as well, but maybe you'll disagree...), taking the steps necessary to reduce those emissions seems obvious to me. We can continue to examine and debate the data to see if there are other causes for the warming trend, of course -- that's just good science. But since there is a trend in the data, the way to correct the current affects is to try to apply the control that trend point towards, in order to fix the problem.
Well, I have seen similar complaints about OS X and monopolies. Not as loud because of (1) Apple's "underdog" status, (2) the much smaller user base (okay, that's nearly the same thing as #1), and (3) Apple software tends to be of better quality -- more stable, fewer bugs -- than the comparable Windows programs.
On the Linux side, it's not a monopoly -- there are a lot of choices out there -- so you will not see complaints about it being a monopoly. Duh.
The $140 (for XP Pro) is the cost of the OS without other software. Red Hat comes with a compiler suite and a lot of other useful items, so the direct comparison of the costs of the packages is not really a valid measure.
All correct. One refinement I'd add: One solid test of a scientific theory is to apply the theory to a scenario, make a prediction, and then measure to see if the observed consequences match that prediction. That is how we either substantiate the theory (predicted results match observations), disprove it (they don't match), ot refine the theory to incorporate new data. But just saying a theory is bogus is no better than saying it is fact -- the test isn't what is said, but in how observations match what the theory predicts.
One option: Let BSG reach Earth (they have enough clues to get here at this point -- though there are still plenty of obstacles to make season 3 interesting), and then start production on the prequel. SciFi hasn't said anything about timing for the prequel -- at least, in the 2 minutes of browsing I did there -- so they could be planning to finish out the current series and then start the prequel.
But I'm sure there are some private contractors somewhere along the line, and so what about their software?
That is exactly the point here. I'm working as a contractor on one of the pieces of software that started this effort. Basically, we'd like to release the software as open source so that we can get universities and others involved in the project, but still retain some level of control over it (and get some free publicity at the same time).
The goal isn't to keep others out of the process -- it's to get others involved, while making sure the final software product is of high quality. After all, if the software you're building is being used to fly spacecraft, you want to be sure it gives accurate answers.
At most of graduate programs, there is a series of written and oral qualifying examinations to demonstrate broad knowledge and expertise in the field. Candidates must pass these tests in order to obtain their degree; in physics, there are usually two levels possible -- candidates can pass at either Masters or Doctoral level.
While not a perfect indicator, these tests are designed to determine if the candidate has understanding of their field. They usually (meaning at the 2 schools where I've seen -- and passed -- the tests) include sections covering understanding of recent advances in the field. And, since the tests are not taken in conjunction with a current class, they do a better job of finding out how well integrated the tested knowledge is. Not that cramming doesn't happen, but it's much more difficult to cram for a graduate level understanding of physics than for, for instance, thermodynamics.
Well, one serious issue that NASA runs into is determining what the best possible package is. To do that for missions that have not been flown before, the mission analysts would like to know how core pieces are implemented. In a closed source world, that information is difficult to obtain from the vendors. And "just trust me" doesn't cut it.
Not only is it "non-affordable", but Borland releases a new version every 6 months or so, at a hefty upgrade price, making Eclipse even more attractive.
But won't DMCA protect us?
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm, I'd at least like to have a "Rename" button for the file, along with the "Yes / No" options for the replacement. Not hard, and it would be VERY useful (and probably not very confusing, either).
L2 is nice for several reasons. The instrument on MAP needs to be kept cold. Sitting at L2, the spacecraft can keep the instrument pointing away from the Sun, and still measuring data, without ever needing to worry about interference from the Earth or Moon, and there is this nice big dish (the solar array) shielding the instrumentation from direct sunlight. In addition, NASA has lots of experience with spacecraft at the collinear Lagrange points (L1 and L2), so the orbits and communications are very well understood there. And L2 is far enough away from the Earth-Moon system to avoid complicated orbit perturbations, but close enough for relatively easy communications (that is, the radio doesn't have to be too big).
Slashdot Mirror
She should know. I hear she can see Egypt from her house.
Theories remain theories, period.
Yeah, the person misusing the word above falls into the Princess Bride category -- "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
On a "good" sail the surface is very reflective. The force that propels the spacecraft is the sum of two vectors; one pointing from the sun to the spacecraft, and a second for the reflected radiation leaving the sail. So you can steer the spacecraft by shortening one side and lengthening the other side of the says attaching the sail to the spacecraft, redirecting the outgoing vector. Or do something similar (e.g. reorient segments rather than the whole sail).
It's more likely that the flight engineers would just add course corrections in (i.e. change the sail orientation to redirect the force) if they had a specific target in the Oort cloud in mind.
Just as small errors due to GR get magnified over the long trajectory, so do small corrections get magnified if made early enough. And, as one earlier commenter noted, a million km isn't much of anything at these distances.
I'd comment, but the NSA is listening...
It is covered in many first year college physics courses. While that does not cover the hoards of science ignorant in the populous, it is certainly a larger sample than the science fiction reading population (though there is significant overlap) -- or that group plus one.
"Who says you have to shell out $999.95 for MS-Project to come up with accurate planned completion dates?"
Hey, it's only $854.99 at Amazon!
Were it my code, I'd be a bit ticked off that it was used this way without accreditation. I agree that it's okay to use the code, since the author did not include a license restricting use (here I'm assuming there is no blanket "Submitted text belongs to submitter" statement at the web site -- and I doubt those would be enforceable anyway), but IMO it's really just good form to give credit to the source for anything that is non-trivial. Taking someone else's work and making it look like your own, even if only passively by leaving off a reference, is just a very poor practice. And it potentially makes maintenance more difficult, since if a problem arises in the code, the reference to the original source could prove quite useful in the debugging process.
And yes, I do write code for a commercial venture, and I do practice what I preach here.
Yes, that piece of the statistics is certainly problematic. But the real point here is that the artists actually get to see a significant return on their work that would otherwise go into the coffers of the recording execs. The quoted numbers ($6 to $10 million) sound like a lot more than they'd see using traditional methods, unless they are a lot better known than it appears from the /. messages. (I haven't heard of them before, but they aren't in a genre I typically listen to.)
"...that global warming is caused by human activity."
This statement is the one that really irritates me. I can understand -- and disagree with, but understand -- the folks that argue that the Earth isn't warming, citing periodic temperature fluctuations in the argument. But once we agree that the warming is happening, for whatever cause, we should look at the consequences of that warming, and if the consequences are negative, take actions to correct things. Politics may enter in making the call about whether the consequences are negative, but I tend to think that they are.
Given that we can agree that we'd like to correct the warming trend, we can either decide that nothing we can do will have any effect and just give up, or we can look for causes that we can control, and try to apply those controls to reduce the effects of the warming trend. I prefer the latter approach. So once a warming trend is granted as a premise -- after all, the facts do appear to support that premise -- the next step should be to see if there are actions that we can take accordingly.
There is a high correlation in the data between man-made pollutants and the warming trend. (Here's another place you may disagree, but if you do grant this piece, the rest of the argument follows, I think.) Now correlation is not the same thing as causation, but it is a very apparent trend in the data. Given that and the known health benefits of reducing emissions (I think we can agree on that point as well, but maybe you'll disagree...), taking the steps necessary to reduce those emissions seems obvious to me. We can continue to examine and debate the data to see if there are other causes for the warming trend, of course -- that's just good science. But since there is a trend in the data, the way to correct the current affects is to try to apply the control that trend point towards, in order to fix the problem.
Well, I have seen similar complaints about OS X and monopolies. Not as loud because of (1) Apple's "underdog" status, (2) the much smaller user base (okay, that's nearly the same thing as #1), and (3) Apple software tends to be of better quality -- more stable, fewer bugs -- than the comparable Windows programs.
On the Linux side, it's not a monopoly -- there are a lot of choices out there -- so you will not see complaints about it being a monopoly. Duh.
The $140 (for XP Pro) is the cost of the OS without other software. Red Hat comes with a compiler suite and a lot of other useful items, so the direct comparison of the costs of the packages is not really a valid measure.
Citing similarities between blade counts in razors and processor counts in servers, Gillette began acquiring shares of AMD in a hostile takeover bid.
All correct. One refinement I'd add: One solid test of a scientific theory is to apply the theory to a scenario, make a prediction, and then measure to see if the observed consequences match that prediction. That is how we either substantiate the theory (predicted results match observations), disprove it (they don't match), ot refine the theory to incorporate new data. But just saying a theory is bogus is no better than saying it is fact -- the test isn't what is said, but in how observations match what the theory predicts.
One option: Let BSG reach Earth (they have enough clues to get here at this point -- though there are still plenty of obstacles to make season 3 interesting), and then start production on the prequel. SciFi hasn't said anything about timing for the prequel -- at least, in the 2 minutes of browsing I did there -- so they could be planning to finish out the current series and then start the prequel.
Orbit is now confirmed. Still need to collect telemetry to determine how close the orbit is to the desired one, but things are looking quite good.
But I'm sure there are some private contractors somewhere along the line, and so what about their software?
That is exactly the point here. I'm working as a contractor on one of the pieces of software that started this effort. Basically, we'd like to release the software as open source so that we can get universities and others involved in the project, but still retain some level of control over it (and get some free publicity at the same time).
The goal isn't to keep others out of the process -- it's to get others involved, while making sure the final software product is of high quality. After all, if the software you're building is being used to fly spacecraft, you want to be sure it gives accurate answers.
At most of graduate programs, there is a series of written and oral qualifying examinations to demonstrate broad knowledge and expertise in the field. Candidates must pass these tests in order to obtain their degree; in physics, there are usually two levels possible -- candidates can pass at either Masters or Doctoral level.
While not a perfect indicator, these tests are designed to determine if the candidate has understanding of their field. They usually (meaning at the 2 schools where I've seen -- and passed -- the tests) include sections covering understanding of recent advances in the field. And, since the tests are not taken in conjunction with a current class, they do a better job of finding out how well integrated the tested knowledge is. Not that cramming doesn't happen, but it's much more difficult to cram for a graduate level understanding of physics than for, for instance, thermodynamics.
Well, one serious issue that NASA runs into is determining what the best possible package is. To do that for missions that have not been flown before, the mission analysts would like to know how core pieces are implemented. In a closed source world, that information is difficult to obtain from the vendors. And "just trust me" doesn't cut it.
Not only is it "non-affordable", but Borland releases a new version every 6 months or so, at a hefty upgrade price, making Eclipse even more attractive.
Oh, it said privacy, not piracy. My bad.
Hmmm, I'd at least like to have a "Rename" button for the file, along with the "Yes / No" options for the replacement. Not hard, and it would be VERY useful (and probably not very confusing, either).
There's a pretty nice explanation at this page
L2 is nice for several reasons. The instrument on MAP needs to be kept cold. Sitting at L2, the spacecraft can keep the instrument pointing away from the Sun, and still measuring data, without ever needing to worry about interference from the Earth or Moon, and there is this nice big dish (the solar array) shielding the instrumentation from direct sunlight. In addition, NASA has lots of experience with spacecraft at the collinear Lagrange points (L1 and L2), so the orbits and communications are very well understood there. And L2 is far enough away from the Earth-Moon system to avoid complicated orbit perturbations, but close enough for relatively easy communications (that is, the radio doesn't have to be too big).
Hope that helps!
Actually, since Pacman generates no waste, there is no need for an anus; hence no problem.