When behind-the-times media outlets cover old news, Slashdot shouldn't help them make it sound state-of-the-art. Even a cursory search of slashdot for BPL turns up:
The Hohmann transferr orbit is based on a few simple ideas.
1. You only want to do two short "burns".
2. Your orbit in between is an ellipse.
3. The most efficient way to increase your kinetic energy is to push yourself forward.
This means that you'll be leaving Earth tangentially to our orbit. By the same token, you'll arrive at Mars tangentially to their orbit (the math is the same backwards).
All orbits have constant energy (no slingshots considered here), so you'll go from orbit near Earth at one energy, to an in between energy, to an orbit near Mars energy. Note that the final burn near Mars should actually *increase* your kinetic energy. If you didn't do the burn, you'd "fall" back down to near Earth's orbit. So both burns are "forward".
Once you accept these concepts of the Hohmann transfer, the timing is just math.
The trip is shorter than that. Opportunities occur every 26 months, but the ship launched a few days ago will arrive next March, making for a 6-month trip.
Your point is still correct, though. We would place a larger emphasis on faster travel times for manned missions.
Furthermore, the most common way of producing hydrogen is not electrolysis, but reforming of hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas)
Ding ding, we have a winner. That's exactly what I was going to say. At this point, whenever we "make" hydrogen, we release a large amount of CO2 into the air because we're getting the hydrogen from CH4 (natural gas = methane).
Perhaps Axis/Panasonic should provide a robots.txt file in ROM by default
That's exactly what I'm saying. The authors of the web server, not the administrator-users, should have taken the steps to prevent Google from crawling the cameras.
It should be obvious, but any web server that doesn't want to be on google should serve up the appropriate robots.txt file. This includes webcams in their default configuration.
Solaris can't be "open-sourced" because of the confidentiality parts of the Unix license agreements. They'd be in trouble for the same things that got IBM a lawsuit and started Groklaw, leaking trade secrets.
I happened to be looking at the README for libjpeg-6b, and its licensing terms include:
(2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying
documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work
of
the Independent JPEG Group".
Why is it that distributors don't worry about libjpeg?
How is this different from the license for libjpeg?
From jpeg-6b/README:
"(2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying
documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work
of
the Independent JPEG Group"."
URLs don't come in the form "name.subdomain.domain".
According to the syntax for URLs in RFC2396, a URI (or URL) starts with the scheme (like http). So the patent should be about assigning URLs in the form "http://name.subdomain.domain/". The patent should be summarily thrown out for being incorrect.
I think you just made a simple mistake. I'll explain the example in detail.
The input number is 11449494.
1 and 1 are the same, yields 1. (first two digits)
1 and 4 are different, yields 9. (first result with next digit)
9 and 4 -> 1
1 and 9 -> 4
4 and 4 -> 4
4 and 9 -> 1
1 and 4 -> 9 finished!
A simple counter-example to the pattern is 14141414, which yields the results 9449119. Clearly the final result (9) is not the same as the second result (4).
In Nature, volume 427 (2004), p352, they describe the actual problem given to the test subjects.
Take an 8-digit string formed from the numbers 1, 4, and 9. A series of two-digit comparisons is done. The result of the comparison is the same digit if they are the same, or the "missing" digit if they are different. That is, 1 1 -> 1, while 1 4 -> 9.
Start by comparing the first two digits, and from then on, compare your current result with the next digit in the string. Their example is 11449494, which leads to the results 1, 9, 1, 4, 4, 1, 9. The last result is the final answer.
The trick is that the original strings were "generated in such a way that the... second [result] coincided with the final solution." People who found this trick were deemed to have gained insight into the pattern.
I think the study is bogus because of this. Sure, some people will notice the pattern, but careful people might choose to carry out the full calculation anyway, just to make sure. Any given string could follow the pattern or not. What they're demonstrating is how easily people can be tricked into finding patterns that may or may not be there. This kind of learning leads to racial profiling --- the result of the easy observation (race) implies the result of the more difficult one (criminality).
The "sleep group" consisted of 22 subjects, 13 of which "solved" the problem (59.1%). There were TWO awake groups, one at night and one in daytime. In each group, 5 of 22 subjects "solved" the problem (22.7%). Don't ask me why 59.1 gets rounded up while 22.7 gets rounded down.
See Nature v427 (2004) p352 for the whole study.
I've done this (using gzip), and the problem is that there are file size limitations. Even if the compressed version comes in under 2GB, the uncompressed one probably won't. Then you need to find a spare partition to get your data back.
"Individuals and companies don't even bother to check for patents on their ideas anymore since they know they'll be sued anyway."
As a matter of fact, engineers are encouraged *not* to do a patent search. Having seen the patents that you'll probably infringe on anyway just proves intent, making the penalties worse. It's much better to infringe by accident.
To expand on the temperament, each key on a keyboard is a half-step above the previous one. They go in an exponential scale, so that every 12 keys, the frequency is doubled. So each key is 2^(1/12) = 1.0595 times the frequency of the previous key.
The "fifth" of a note is supposed to be exactly 1.5 times the frequency. But, on a keyboard, the actual note is 2^(7/12) = 1.4983 times the frequency of the fundamental. If you tune an instrument so the 2^(1/12) relationship holds, that's equal temperament. But you could also tune it so the thirds and fifths of the scale notes come out correct. In this case, the B# and C may indeed be slightly different pitches. Also, the tuning is particular to a scale. So the instrument sounds different if it's played in a different scale. A keyboard sounds the same in any scale, hence "equal" temperament.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure they meant the word power in the colloquial sense, in which case they're still wrong, because volts don't measure current, either.
We've been rolled out in parts of Allentown, PA for a year now.
I've actually had BPL in the Allentown, PA area for a year now. What cancellation?
The Hohmann transferr orbit is based on a few simple ideas. 1. You only want to do two short "burns". 2. Your orbit in between is an ellipse. 3. The most efficient way to increase your kinetic energy is to push yourself forward. This means that you'll be leaving Earth tangentially to our orbit. By the same token, you'll arrive at Mars tangentially to their orbit (the math is the same backwards). All orbits have constant energy (no slingshots considered here), so you'll go from orbit near Earth at one energy, to an in between energy, to an orbit near Mars energy. Note that the final burn near Mars should actually *increase* your kinetic energy. If you didn't do the burn, you'd "fall" back down to near Earth's orbit. So both burns are "forward". Once you accept these concepts of the Hohmann transfer, the timing is just math.
The trip is shorter than that. Opportunities occur every 26 months, but the ship launched a few days ago will arrive next March, making for a 6-month trip. Your point is still correct, though. We would place a larger emphasis on faster travel times for manned missions.
If you're just buying printers until the ink runs out, you probably already have a cable.
Furthermore, the most common way of producing hydrogen is not electrolysis, but reforming of hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) Ding ding, we have a winner. That's exactly what I was going to say. At this point, whenever we "make" hydrogen, we release a large amount of CO2 into the air because we're getting the hydrogen from CH4 (natural gas = methane).
It should be obvious, but any web server that doesn't want to be on google should serve up the appropriate robots.txt file. This includes webcams in their default configuration.
...and my CRT.
Solaris can't be "open-sourced" because of the confidentiality parts of the Unix license agreements. They'd be in trouble for the same things that got IBM a lawsuit and started Groklaw, leaking trade secrets.
And also Terraserver? Over a terabyte of images of terra firma.
(2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group".
Why is it that distributors don't worry about libjpeg?
How is this different from the license for libjpeg? From jpeg-6b/README: "(2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group"."
URLs don't come in the form "name.subdomain.domain". According to the syntax for URLs in RFC2396, a URI (or URL) starts with the scheme (like http). So the patent should be about assigning URLs in the form "http://name.subdomain.domain/". The patent should be summarily thrown out for being incorrect.
The input number is 11449494.
1 and 1 are the same, yields 1. (first two digits)
1 and 4 are different, yields 9. (first result with next digit)
9 and 4 -> 1
1 and 9 -> 4
4 and 4 -> 4
4 and 9 -> 1
1 and 4 -> 9 finished!
A simple counter-example to the pattern is 14141414, which yields the results 9449119.
Clearly the final result (9) is not the same as the second result (4).
Take an 8-digit string formed from the numbers 1, 4, and 9. A series of two-digit comparisons is done. The result of the comparison is the same digit if they are the same, or the "missing" digit if they are different. That is, 1 1 -> 1, while 1 4 -> 9.
Start by comparing the first two digits, and from then on, compare your current result with the next digit in the string. Their example is 11449494, which leads to the results 1, 9, 1, 4, 4, 1, 9. The last result is the final answer.
The trick is that the original strings were "generated in such a way that the ... second [result] coincided with the final solution." People who found this trick were deemed to have gained insight into the pattern.
I think the study is bogus because of this. Sure, some people will notice the pattern, but careful people might choose to carry out the full calculation anyway, just to make sure. Any given string could follow the pattern or not. What they're demonstrating is how easily people can be tricked into finding patterns that may or may not be there. This kind of learning leads to racial profiling --- the result of the easy observation (race) implies the result of the more difficult one (criminality).
The "sleep group" consisted of 22 subjects, 13 of which "solved" the problem (59.1%). There were TWO awake groups, one at night and one in daytime. In each group, 5 of 22 subjects "solved" the problem (22.7%). Don't ask me why 59.1 gets rounded up while 22.7 gets rounded down. See Nature v427 (2004) p352 for the whole study.
Better make that more complicated because of file size limitations.
I've done this (using gzip), and the problem is that there are file size limitations. Even if the compressed version comes in under 2GB, the uncompressed one probably won't. Then you need to find a spare partition to get your data back.
As a matter of fact, engineers are encouraged *not* to do a patent search. Having seen the patents that you'll probably infringe on anyway just proves intent, making the penalties worse. It's much better to infringe by accident.
If you really want to get spam, just sign up for a few "free" porn web sites. That should do it fairly quickly.
The "fifth" of a note is supposed to be exactly 1.5 times the frequency. But, on a keyboard, the actual note is 2^(7/12) = 1.4983 times the frequency of the fundamental. If you tune an instrument so the 2^(1/12) relationship holds, that's equal temperament. But you could also tune it so the thirds and fifths of the scale notes come out correct. In this case, the B# and C may indeed be slightly different pitches. Also, the tuning is particular to a scale. So the instrument sounds different if it's played in a different scale. A keyboard sounds the same in any scale, hence "equal" temperament.