The implication is that because they buried bodies in a particular way, they had some belief, or potential belief in a resurrection or life after death, because otherwise, why bother arranging corpses in any way?
I don't think that implication is ironclad.
I think you'd be right. Burial or crematory (or whatever death rites) practises are for the living. Yeah, sure, there's a sanitary aspect to it and you don't want the local carnivores (who'll scavenge when available) developing a taste for human meat, but regardless of "religious" beliefs or disbeliefs, there's a little part of everyone that isn't really convinced that death is the end, whatever may come after. So you do nice things like arranging corpses "the way they would have wanted it" partly to respect their memories, and partly in the hope that somebody does something nice for you when you're gone. Doesn't mean you really think that they're out there somewhere watching, or that the position will have some apres vie meaning.
In archaeology, "spritual" == "no other explanation".
I mean really, every other artifact that they dig up that doesn't immediately have an obvious purpose is a "ritual object" of some "spiritual significance".
Microsoft doesn't really give a damn if OOXML passes or not. They just want to be able to say they are standards compliant
Ironically, they are NOT compliant with the version of OOXML that ISO/IEC approved, which isn't the same as the version of OOXML that ECMA originally handed them. (It's not even clear that the ECMA OOXML spec conformed fully to what Microsoft Office does, but that's a moot point now.)
I switched from cable to satellite a long time ago, and retired the satellite service nearly ten years ago -- probably about the same time I got a DVD player.
We almost never watch broadcast TV, and most of what we used to watch was PBS kids' shows, which my kids have now outgrown. The money we don't spend on cable/satellite fees and box rentals goes to buy (or rent, or borrow from the library) DVDs of shows worth watching -- and we don't have to worry about the DVR working or advertising or station ID logos overlaying the image.
WTF was data like this doing on something nice and portable like a laptop anyway? I bet it was in an Excel spreadsheet (the database of choice for PHBs everywhere) too.
I was all set to make some witty (or at least half witty) comment about writing too much SF lately when I react negatively to seeing "fusion" and "leak" in the same headline, but you beat me to it.
However: Great, we finally get cold fusion working (by a chip manufacturer? really?)
Sure, why not? If there is anything to cold fusion (and at least part of the jury is still out on that), and it depends on the microstructure of the cathode (anode? whichever), who better to perfect it? I use that little conceit as the basis for the solid-state fusion modules in some of my stories. As I put it they "bear about the same relation to Pons & Fleischman's crude apparatus as does a multi-core CPU/GPU chip does to a 'cat's whisker' galena crystal diode".
Well no, because seven really is the upper limit. They just don't specify the lower limit.
And you don't need to use the operational launcher to test the lander, you can use something else. It's not like the Apollo program used a Saturn V (or even Saturn IB) to develop the Apollo capsule. For some of the drop tests they didn't use a rocket at all.
Well, no, the air pressure at the top of Everest is about 300mb. I suppose that's "comparable" to 7mb if by that you mean "one and a half orders of magnitude bigger than". The Martian air pressure does vary quite a bit (maybe +/- 2mb) seasonally as CO2 at the polar caps sublimates or freezes. It's higher also at the bottom of Mariner Valley, but I couldn't find a reliable number for it.
Cuil is useless. The phrase I searched ("aresian well" - note spelling) turned up one hit with the phrase and a bunch of "hits" with just one of the words. The one apparently-valid hit went 404 a long time ago. Google turns up the correct pages and a few others that are misspellings of "artesian well".
If you don't have a license to take the picture, it's a fair bet that OCST/FAA won't license you for the launch. As for restricting travel -- they're not preventing you from leaving, just from using a rocket to do it.
(BTW, do you usually "foe" people you lose an argument with? LOL!)
No, you confuse access (launching satellites that can take pictures) with free press. The NOAA licensing is not about what you do with the pictures later, it's about taking them in the first place. To the extent that it is restricting what you do with them, that's you voluntarily giving up some rights to obtain access in the first place -- nothing unconstitutional about that.
Not that I necessarily disagree with the rest of your comment.
they should make it so that one patent can be invalidated by any kind of prior art that applies to it
The exception is patent apps that properly disclose prior art and build on it. Attempting to actually patent said prior art should be forbidden, and grounds for overturning the entire patent. Recent Supreme Court and Patent Office decisions may indicate that we're headed that way. Finally some common sense.
Read again the bit about international obligations. Congress has consitutional authority to pass laws in accordance with treaties that the US has entered into. It's a nice loophole that lets them step around other parts of the constitution if they really want to (just get the treaty negotiated first), not unlike the interstate commerce clause.
Ultimately the Supreme Court may rule otherwise, of course, but getting to that point is not an easy or cheap process.
Not sure what any of that has to do with freedom of the press - that relates to publishing pictures you've already taken, not taking them in the first place. Do you think a press pass is enough to get you into (to use the ubiqutious example) Area 51?
I agree that the whole concept of applying this to Lunar X-prize entrants is ludicrous, but if the law is on the books then NOAA has to at least pay lip service to it.
The question is, how much does the license cost? Back in the day, you needed an FCC license to operate a CB radio, and you still do to operate some bands/power levels of GRS radios (walky-talkies). But the license was just a registration thing - send in your application (I don't even recall it costing anything, maybe a couple bucks) and they sent you your offical license and call sign. Perhaps the NOAA "remote sensing" license -- at least in this case -- will be similar.
I can see some need for regulating (thus licensing) high resolution imaging satellites of the sort that put earlier generations of spysats to shame -- and I imagine the application for same requires all sorts of details about resolution, bandwidths, orbital parameters, download frequencies and encoding, and security measures to ensure that the pictures you took of $SENSITIVE_SITE don't end up in the wrong hands. And I can see charging a hefty price to someone who can probably afford it (satellites aren't cheap) for processing the paperwork.
But if NOAA is charging more than a token fee to process applications for something like Lunar X-Prize, (and the up-to 120 day turnaround is not encouraging), then write your congresscritters to (a) put the squeeze on NOAA to lighten up, and (b) amend the 1992 Act to bring it into the current millenium.
[Meanwhile, I'm pleased to note that my satellite which does remote sensing exclusively by gravity waves and neutrinos needs no such license.;-) ]
Are you sure this guy hadn't called support to have his password reset? Because "password" sounds like something they might reset it to, and unlikely for someone to forget.
NO3? I think you mean NO4 - nitrogen tetroxide. At least that's what the US Titan uses and is used in the reaction control systems on eg Shuttle. The advantage is that mix is hypergolic, the disadvantage is that both components are highly toxic and corrosive.
I'm not sure by what criteria you're evaluation CH4+02 as "worse" -- it's less toxic and has a higher Isp.
Slashdot Mirror
The implication is that because they buried bodies in a particular way, they had some belief, or potential belief in a resurrection or life after death, because otherwise, why bother arranging corpses in any way?
I don't think that implication is ironclad.
I think you'd be right. Burial or crematory (or whatever death rites) practises are for the living. Yeah, sure, there's a sanitary aspect to it and you don't want the local carnivores (who'll scavenge when available) developing a taste for human meat, but regardless of "religious" beliefs or disbeliefs, there's a little part of everyone that isn't really convinced that death is the end, whatever may come after. So you do nice things like arranging corpses "the way they would have wanted it" partly to respect their memories, and partly in the hope that somebody does something nice for you when you're gone. Doesn't mean you really think that they're out there somewhere watching, or that the position will have some apres vie meaning.
In archaeology, "spritual" == "no other explanation".
I mean really, every other artifact that they dig up that doesn't immediately have an obvious purpose is a "ritual object" of some "spiritual significance".
Microsoft doesn't really give a damn if OOXML passes or not. They just want to be able to say they are standards compliant
Ironically, they are NOT compliant with the version of OOXML that ISO/IEC approved, which isn't the same as the version of OOXML that ECMA originally handed them. (It's not even clear that the ECMA OOXML spec conformed fully to what Microsoft Office does, but that's a moot point now.)
I switched from cable to satellite a long time ago, and retired the satellite service nearly ten years ago -- probably about the same time I got a DVD player.
We almost never watch broadcast TV, and most of what we used to watch was PBS kids' shows, which my kids have now outgrown. The money we don't spend on cable/satellite fees and box rentals goes to buy (or rent, or borrow from the library) DVDs of shows worth watching -- and we don't have to worry about the DVR working or advertising or station ID logos overlaying the image.
Paying to watch commercials is just wrong.
are mad that the US was "One pretzel away from getting rid of Bush."
I dunno, you'd think they'd find one pretzel away from a President Cheney kinda scarey.
Isn't string theory dying?
Yep, Netcraft confirms it.
WTF was data like this doing on something nice and portable like a laptop anyway? I bet it was in an Excel spreadsheet (the database of choice for PHBs everywhere) too.
(And yes, it should have been encrypted.)
I was all set to make some witty (or at least half witty) comment about writing too much SF lately when I react negatively to seeing "fusion" and "leak" in the same headline, but you beat me to it.
However:
Great, we finally get cold fusion working (by a chip manufacturer? really?)
Sure, why not? If there is anything to cold fusion (and at least part of the jury is still out on that), and it depends on the microstructure of the cathode (anode? whichever), who better to perfect it? I use that little conceit as the basis for the solid-state fusion modules in some of my stories. As I put it they "bear about the same relation to Pons & Fleischman's crude apparatus as does a multi-core CPU/GPU chip does to a 'cat's whisker' galena crystal diode".
Nobody expects the Spanish exposition!
(But admit it, you were all expecting that line, weren't you.)
Well no, because seven really is the upper limit. They just don't specify the lower limit.
And you don't need to use the operational launcher to test the lander, you can use something else. It's not like the Apollo program used a Saturn V (or even Saturn IB) to develop the Apollo capsule. For some of the drop tests they didn't use a rocket at all.
Note that they said "up to" seven humans. An unmanned launch of Dragon in 2009 would qualify.
Oh, and you can develop/qualify your lander at the same time you qualify your launcher; they don't have to be done serially.
"Suicide", eh?
Yep, shot himself in the back of the head.
(No, I have not read TFA.)
Well, no, the air pressure at the top of Everest is about 300mb. I suppose that's "comparable" to 7mb if by that you mean "one and a half orders of magnitude bigger than". The Martian air pressure does vary quite a bit (maybe +/- 2mb) seasonally as CO2 at the polar caps sublimates or freezes. It's higher also at the bottom of Mariner Valley, but I couldn't find a reliable number for it.
Cuil is useless. The phrase I searched ("aresian well" - note spelling) turned up one hit with the phrase and a bunch of "hits" with just one of the words. The one apparently-valid hit went 404 a long time ago. Google turns up the correct pages and a few others that are misspellings of "artesian well".
Hell, Alta Vista was better than this.
If you don't have a license to take the picture, it's a fair bet that OCST/FAA won't license you for the launch. As for restricting travel -- they're not preventing you from leaving, just from using a rocket to do it.
(BTW, do you usually "foe" people you lose an argument with? LOL!)
No, you confuse access (launching satellites that can take pictures) with free press. The NOAA licensing is not about what you do with the pictures later, it's about taking them in the first place. To the extent that it is restricting what you do with them, that's you voluntarily giving up some rights to obtain access in the first place -- nothing unconstitutional about that.
Not that I necessarily disagree with the rest of your comment.
The /proc filesystem was first introduced in Version 8, although I don't recall the exact date. Circa 1984, anyway. It was later made part of Sys V.
they should make it so that one patent can be invalidated by any kind of prior art that applies to it
The exception is patent apps that properly disclose prior art and build on it. Attempting to actually patent said prior art should be forbidden, and grounds for overturning the entire patent. Recent Supreme Court and Patent Office decisions may indicate that we're headed that way. Finally some common sense.
Read again the bit about international obligations. Congress has consitutional authority to pass laws in accordance with treaties that the US has entered into. It's a nice loophole that lets them step around other parts of the constitution if they really want to (just get the treaty negotiated first), not unlike the interstate commerce clause.
Ultimately the Supreme Court may rule otherwise, of course, but getting to that point is not an easy or cheap process.
Not sure what any of that has to do with freedom of the press - that relates to publishing pictures you've already taken, not taking them in the first place. Do you think a press pass is enough to get you into (to use the ubiqutious example) Area 51?
I agree that the whole concept of applying this to Lunar X-prize entrants is ludicrous, but if the law is on the books then NOAA has to at least pay lip service to it.
The question is, how much does the license cost? Back in the day, you needed an FCC license to operate a CB radio, and you still do to operate some bands/power levels of GRS radios (walky-talkies). But the license was just a registration thing - send in your application (I don't even recall it costing anything, maybe a couple bucks) and they sent you your offical license and call sign. Perhaps the NOAA "remote sensing" license -- at least in this case -- will be similar.
I can see some need for regulating (thus licensing) high resolution imaging satellites of the sort that put earlier generations of spysats to shame -- and I imagine the application for same requires all sorts of details about resolution, bandwidths, orbital parameters, download frequencies and encoding, and security measures to ensure that the pictures you took of $SENSITIVE_SITE don't end up in the wrong hands. And I can see charging a hefty price to someone who can probably afford it (satellites aren't cheap) for processing the paperwork.
But if NOAA is charging more than a token fee to process applications for something like Lunar X-Prize, (and the up-to 120 day turnaround is not encouraging), then write your congresscritters to (a) put the squeeze on NOAA to lighten up, and (b) amend the 1992 Act to bring it into the current millenium.
[Meanwhile, I'm pleased to note that my satellite which does remote sensing exclusively by gravity waves and neutrinos needs no such license. ;-) ]
Are you sure this guy hadn't called support to have his password reset? Because "password" sounds like something they might reset it to, and unlikely for someone to forget.
Who said I was American? Okay, TFA is about Russian-European programm - s/federal/European national/.
As for you telling other people how they should spend their money -- how rude.
My servers run on Electricity
My servers run on Love.
Hah, mine run on Steam. Now excuse me while I check the oil and replace some worn gears.
Whoops, you're right, N204, not NO4. D'oh. I need to go get more coffee, I don't even have your excuse. ;-)
NO3? I think you mean NO4 - nitrogen tetroxide. At least that's what the US Titan uses and is used in the reaction control systems on eg Shuttle. The advantage is that mix is hypergolic, the disadvantage is that both components are highly toxic and corrosive.
I'm not sure by what criteria you're evaluation CH4+02 as "worse" -- it's less toxic and has a higher Isp.