What applications would support that? In order to get any actions from the second pointer supported, you'd have to change the event hierarchy and structure, and nothing currently supports that.
Actually, isn't this how scroll mice are supported (by treating the scrolling up/down as button 4/5)? And, as a related question, how much does the functionality of the second pointer depend on being able to actually see it? If the problem is hardware sprites, etc., could you use the second pointer to, i.e., spin your 3d model, without needing to see a little arrow moving around on the screen?
Ok, I correct myself: that patent is on the vehicle; on their
site
they claim to have patented the air-launch method, but
the only method-patent I can find is some more obscure
flight-path-angle deal. Maybe they were just being vague as a form of advertisement...
This was done with a smaller rocket, the
Pegasus, built by Orbital Sciences, which (interestingly) they claim to be the world's first privately developed space launch vehicle which, interestingly, they claim to be the first privately developed space launch vehicle. It's launched off of an L-1011 (a Lockheed airliner that looks like a DC-10), but it's only useful for small satellite payloads.
If you only want US map data, the Census Bureau has public domain map data files at, for example,
http://www.census.gov/geo/tigerline/tl_1998.html . There may be newer versions available elsewhere on their site. They have documentation on the database fields, etc., and I think even some example code. It's all nice and free.
It depends on what you mean by "reasonable." The bigger and more complex the hydrocarbons get, the more difficult it becomes to 'burn' them in the fuel cell. Hydrogen fuel cells do ok at room temperature, direct methanol at 100C, ethanol needs a few more hundred degrees C, etc. You can (and really must) introduce catalysts to help you, but this can get expensive very quickly.
I think the money-making solution the networks will eventually have to settle on is along the lines of the "product placement" already all-too-common in films. The advertisements (what people don't want to see) will need to be so well integrated with the content (what people do want to see) that it becomes so inconvenient to screen it out, that no one will bother. And, personally, I'm mostly okay with that - let James Bond drive his BMW's, Tom Cruise hack with his Macintosh (!) all day long, whatever. It's a way for programs to get made and studios to make a profit without (mostly) interrupting my mind-numbing entertainment.
Well, comparing apples and oranges is a legitimate thing to do, when you're talking about billion dollar fruit...though I still (in, BTW, concurrence with the official position of the American Physical Society, which it sounds like you're on your way to joining at some point), maintain that the ISS is more lemon than anything else. Any unmanned microgravity experiment is going to be [unsubstantiated] orders of magnitude cheaper; do they really need constant personal attention?
In any case, thank you for the apology. For my part, I will try to do better in mathematically defining what I mean by "approximately nil" (perhaps in terms of peer reviewed publications per dollar? Should be fun, with such large denominators...).
It found it just a wee bit funny to link to the ESA as an example of an unbiased alternative to NASA there...:)
As far as other unsubstatiated posts, well, this is slashdot after all. Had your post been more politely written, and not focused on casting my opinion as based on "childish rivalry" instead of the well-researched, informed standpoint that I, of course, hold it to be, I wouldn't have expected you to substantiate your opinion.
It boils down to this: Big Science means Big Money - taxpayers' money, at that. You appear to believe that manned space research gives approximately equal science-bang for tax-buck as an SSC or LHC project. You are welcome to your opinion;
many
other
scientists
have other opinions. Don't assume that, because they disagree with you, they're playing some silly Army-Navy rivalry game, especially when they may have already presented evidence to back up their opinion.
And, just FYI, I have had no stake in high energy physics since '94. It's all software these days, y'know...;)
but your biased definition of "actual science" is childish and unwarranted
A fine good morning to you, as well. I think if you'll carefully reread my post, you'll see that I was fairly even-handed about both boondoggles. On the other hand, though we both know that it's "total bogus" that the SSC would have contributed to actual science, if not necessarily "useful" science, i.e. technology. However, I would love to see a reference to the scientific value ot the "various experiments in the microgravity environment" that didn't come from NASA's PR department, as a response to the link I provided to demonstrate that experiments have, so far, not been valuable as "actual science." As I'm sure you're aware, science isn't about pissing, as you have done, but about substantiating your claims.
Gnuplot is indeed great, but the best I can get it to do re:shaded area is plot with impulses and set the line width large, or make the window small. The former can be quite remarkably ugly. I assume that on printing it would look even worse.
Ah, nuclear - the 'clean' solution...:P
But, no, I don't disagree that a completely zero-emission energy chain could be built. And to get the worst part of the chain (mobile platforms) zero-emission first is a fine step.
Aside: Really, ethanol from organic sources would in fact be great (especially wrt CO2), if it weren't such a big molecule that you need a high temperature solid-oxide fuel cell to use it...
Zero emissions vehicles are neat, and there are a number of technologies (the various flavors of fuel cells being the current 'baby' of the industry) that will allow it to happen. But even though the cars themselves may be emitting near-zero pollutants, you have to be careful to sum up the emissions along the whole chain of production: For the fuel cell example, where is the hydrogen/methanol/ethanol coming from? For batteries, how much soot are the power plants producing the recharging current kicking out? Sure, it will probably be more efficient having the pollution generation confined to one big stationary power plant rather than millions of inefficient motors, but I don't necessarily want to live nearby...
Re:Breeding population
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
A little dose of radiation should give you the genetic diversity you're looking for...i.e., just using more technology to correct the mistakes we've made with our other technology when we were correcting the other mistakes we made when...:P
Re:Worries about evolution
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
The law of evolution is really trivial: Whatever dies before it reproduces, doesn't have kids, which therefore also can't have kids, and so on. Combined with gene theory (inheritance and mutation) it only gets a little bit more complicated, but not much.
The implications of cloning on evolution are equally trivial: there's a new way to have kids after you've been declared dead.
Really, cloning is just redefining "dead" as "when there's not enough of your DNA left to make a kid." Kind of like taking sperm/eggs from someone in a deep deep coma. The basic tenets of evolution theory are unaffected by this (mostly semantic) change.
I had/have a similar problem, in that I use a dialup-by-call ISP (i.e. no registration, no user name), for which they don't provide an smtp server. So I can receive mail using something like the methods mentioned above, but if I send mail using sendmail on my linux laptop, a number of hosts will try to do a domain name/IP lookup on me and reject the mail as being spoofed. In the end I've been using an open mail relay a friend has at his work, but: is there a more legit way to send mail via a free DNS/IP matched smtp server somewhere?
biological compounds that can be built in a zero-gravity environment
That's all hooey. Check out this APS What's New report, in particular:
But Science magazine (25 June 99) disclosed that the crystals used were not even grown in space, but in Australia. Space-grown crystals can be distinguished only by their cost.
but if it broadcasts in the kW power range, I think there should be enough power arriving at your house just through the air.
Hmm, I dunno. Suppose it goes out spherically (I know, it's lobed, but just to estimate) so the power per unit area goes down with the distance squared. You'd only have to go, say, 100 meters to get a a 10kW/m2 power density to 1 W/m2. So you could maybe get a small glow if you lived next door, but surely this is why we need amplifiers, and power lines for that matter?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, isn't this how scroll mice are supported (by treating the scrolling up/down as button 4/5)? And, as a related question, how much does the functionality of the second pointer depend on being able to actually see it? If the problem is hardware sprites, etc., could you use the second pointer to, i.e., spin your 3d model, without needing to see a little arrow moving around on the screen?
Indeed - and I'm wondering if they meant to say "three hundred atoms thick," since one atom is roughly 1 angstrom = 0.1 nanometer big...
Ok, I correct myself: that patent is on the vehicle; on their site they claim to have patented the air-launch method, but the only method-patent I can find is some more obscure flight-path-angle deal. Maybe they were just being vague as a form of advertisement...
Sorry about the deja vu sentence there. I wanted to add that, apparently, Orbital has even patented this launch method. Sheesh.
This was done with a smaller rocket, the Pegasus, built by Orbital Sciences, which (interestingly) they claim to be the world's first privately developed space launch vehicle which, interestingly, they claim to be the first privately developed space launch vehicle. It's launched off of an L-1011 (a Lockheed airliner that looks like a DC-10), but it's only useful for small satellite payloads.
If you only want US map data, the Census Bureau has public domain map data files at, for example, http://www.census.gov/geo/tigerline/tl_1998.html . There may be newer versions available elsewhere on their site. They have documentation on the database fields, etc., and I think even some example code. It's all nice and free.
It depends on what you mean by "reasonable." The bigger and more complex the hydrocarbons get, the more difficult it becomes to 'burn' them in the fuel cell. Hydrogen fuel cells do ok at room temperature, direct methanol at 100C, ethanol needs a few more hundred degrees C, etc. You can (and really must) introduce catalysts to help you, but this can get expensive very quickly.
Er, I think you mean momentum. Energy and time, position and momentum.
I think the money-making solution the networks will eventually have to settle on is along the lines of the "product placement" already all-too-common in films. The advertisements (what people don't want to see) will need to be so well integrated with the content (what people do want to see) that it becomes so inconvenient to screen it out, that no one will bother. And, personally, I'm mostly okay with that - let James Bond drive his BMW's, Tom Cruise hack with his Macintosh (!) all day long, whatever. It's a way for programs to get made and studios to make a profit without (mostly) interrupting my mind-numbing entertainment.
In any case, thank you for the apology. For my part, I will try to do better in mathematically defining what I mean by "approximately nil" (perhaps in terms of peer reviewed publications per dollar? Should be fun, with such large denominators...).
As far as other unsubstatiated posts, well, this is slashdot after all. Had your post been more politely written, and not focused on casting my opinion as based on "childish rivalry" instead of the well-researched, informed standpoint that I, of course, hold it to be, I wouldn't have expected you to substantiate your opinion.
It boils down to this: Big Science means Big Money - taxpayers' money, at that. You appear to believe that manned space research gives approximately equal science-bang for tax-buck as an SSC or LHC project. You are welcome to your opinion; many other scientists have other opinions. Don't assume that, because they disagree with you, they're playing some silly Army-Navy rivalry game, especially when they may have already presented evidence to back up their opinion.
And, just FYI, I have had no stake in high energy physics since '94. It's all software these days, y'know... ;)
A fine good morning to you, as well. I think if you'll carefully reread my post, you'll see that I was fairly even-handed about both boondoggles. On the other hand, though we both know that it's "total bogus" that the SSC would have contributed to actual science, if not necessarily "useful" science, i.e. technology. However, I would love to see a reference to the scientific value ot the "various experiments in the microgravity environment" that didn't come from NASA's PR department, as a response to the link I provided to demonstrate that experiments have, so far, not been valuable as "actual science." As I'm sure you're aware, science isn't about pissing, as you have done, but about substantiating your claims.
Gnuplot is indeed great, but the best I can get it to do re:shaded area is plot with impulses and set the line width large, or make the window small. The former can be quite remarkably ugly. I assume that on printing it would look even worse.
Aside: Really, ethanol from organic sources would in fact be great (especially wrt CO2), if it weren't such a big molecule that you need a high temperature solid-oxide fuel cell to use it...
Zero emissions vehicles are neat, and there are a number of technologies (the various flavors of fuel cells being the current 'baby' of the industry) that will allow it to happen. But even though the cars themselves may be emitting near-zero pollutants, you have to be careful to sum up the emissions along the whole chain of production: For the fuel cell example, where is the hydrogen/methanol/ethanol coming from? For batteries, how much soot are the power plants producing the recharging current kicking out? Sure, it will probably be more efficient having the pollution generation confined to one big stationary power plant rather than millions of inefficient motors, but I don't necessarily want to live nearby...
A little dose of radiation should give you the genetic diversity you're looking for...i.e., just using more technology to correct the mistakes we've made with our other technology when we were correcting the other mistakes we made when... :P
The implications of cloning on evolution are equally trivial: there's a new way to have kids after you've been declared dead.
Really, cloning is just redefining "dead" as "when there's not enough of your DNA left to make a kid." Kind of like taking sperm/eggs from someone in a deep deep coma. The basic tenets of evolution theory are unaffected by this (mostly semantic) change.
http://www.groenbros.com
And, I might add, these are already flying.
I had/have a similar problem, in that I use a dialup-by-call ISP (i.e. no registration, no user name), for which they don't provide an smtp server. So I can receive mail using something like the methods mentioned above, but if I send mail using sendmail on my linux laptop, a number of hosts will try to do a domain name/IP lookup on me and reject the mail as being spoofed. In the end I've been using an open mail relay a friend has at his work, but: is there a more legit way to send mail via a free DNS/IP matched smtp server somewhere?
Argh. The link is here
That's all hooey. Check out this APS What's New report, in particular:
But Science magazine (25 June 99) disclosed that the crystals used were not even grown in space, but in Australia. Space-grown crystals can be distinguished only by their cost.
So, do I have the right to decrypt my own DVD's?
Hmm, I dunno. Suppose it goes out spherically (I know, it's lobed, but just to estimate) so the power per unit area goes down with the distance squared. You'd only have to go, say, 100 meters to get a a 10kW/m2 power density to 1 W/m2. So you could maybe get a small glow if you lived next door, but surely this is why we need amplifiers, and power lines for that matter?
Umm, aren't most lightbulbs 50 - 100 W?