There's some good discussion about this going on in #space at irc.freenode.org, I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in the topic. Also we've been talking about software issues affecting the rover (if we get to sol 1000, just about every piece of ground software will be inoperable). It's a cool place, check it out.
This is cool, but the mantle is hardly the center of the earth. I'm much more interested in this - a proposal to create a molten-iron probe capable of actually reaching the core of the earth. A hundred thousand tons or more of the stuff would be poured into an artificial crevice in the earth, where it would sink down through the mantle.
The trick seems to be finding a probe that can ride the iron blob the whole way down, and keep it hot (probably through radioactivity). This was also considered as a way to dispose of nuclear waste.
At only $10 billion, this seems like a very hot possibility for exploring the mysteries of the earth. Just like sending a man to the moon, sending a manmade object to the center of the earth would be a seven-sigma experience.
They won't do it - not yet at least. I mean, I'd really like to see it - inexpensive Macs that are as fast as they are beautiful, that'd really be a seven-sigma experience, but it's not going to happen.
With increased interest in IBM processors from Sony and Microsoft, it seems like IBM will continue to be a good place for Apple to stay, at least good enough to outweigh the benefits of switching to AMD or Intel. There's no way Apple will want to compete directly with commodity PCs (the Clone Wars showed that much). Apple could do it, but the cost to the community would be severe.
Is it me, or is this story simply more uninformed rumors?
I agree that Roland's "stories" have got to stop - but is there anything we can do to further this end? (and I don't mean hack/ddos his site, although I'm surprised that hasn't happenned yet). I'm all for complaining when things suck, but seriously is there anything we *CAN* do to stop this? Maybe a firefox plugin that filters Roland out?
I know that the editors don't actually read the site - the dupes pretty much prove that - but seriously, I'm paying for this site. I made a choice to subscribe, before Roland came around. Slashdot has had it's moments but seriously... Come on guys!
I actually find it easier and more convenient to stick real notes onto my monitor than work with those things on my desktop. The notes are always on top, can be moved easily if necessary, and can adhere to the frame of the monitor to stay out of the way
Actually in Mac OS 10.4, the postit notes widget can be made to do all of that. This hint at MacOSXHints.com shows how to keep the stickies always on top. They are easy to move and can be put back into the dashboard at any time. Maybe not as good as on the rim of your monitor, though.
I wouldn't worry too much about this one - the engineers are already using the engineering test rovers to test possible means of escape here on earth. The test rovers have proven invaluable in the past for modelling such complex situations (where computer models would be unlikely to be of much help).
The rover had made it many kilometers, I don't a little sand dune is going to stop it. All the scientists I've spoken to about this seemed optimistic (which was not how they felt about the spirit anomoly back in January 2004) so... I'm not worried just yet.
Does make for some very cool pictures though!
-- Justin
I guess I mean: does this really mean anything important to a scientist, or is it just eyecandy for the taxpayers?
They have teams. Nothing is done because of individual interest. It is a huge beuracracy, you have managment like any business, that directs the scientists.
Well, yes and no. One of the scientists I work with at Cornell University is in the Atmospheric interest group of the MER project. The science team is broken up into interest groups such as Atmospheric, Geology, Soils, Long Term Planning, etc, which allows for parallel planning. Every day there is a Science Operations Working Group meeting, at which the agenda is decided - plans are merged and different courses of actions are argued. But don't think for a moment that there's never been anything done by MER simply because a single scientist thought it was important. Professor Squyres once called in on a day he wasn't even working to make sure panoramic cameras got some good images of the micrometeorite impact.
I think it would be cool if places like NASA let scientists pick thier projects.
I worked at JPL as an intern, and then as an operations staff worker for MER, and I can say that the people there are certainly not all working on projects that they did not choose. In fact, many were hired to work on a specific project, and while they usually move on afterwards, it's not like they are often stuck working on some project they hate. Indeed, many scientists/engineers work for NASA for such low pay precisely because they are working on something much more interesting to them than they would in industry for twice the money.
And it would make people feel like they are contributing to discovery, rather than living a mundane dilbertesq life.
Anyone working for NASA that feels that way is doing something wrong - when I was at JPL we had our share of management problems and budget issues, but it was anything *BUT* dilbert. Most of the coworkers are as crazy as you, the ideas that are being worked on even crazier... The pioneer feeling doesn't seem to really fade... even if what you are working on has been done before many times, it's still new, because it's innnnn spaaaaaaaaaaaaace!.
Come to think of it, why don't they run NASA like sourceforge.
Because most people aren't rocket scientists? Because spreading around responsibility too thinly is the surest way to see that nothing gets done (or no one is held accountable)?
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see the NASA change to be more agile, more risk-taking and more "open ended" in some ways - but lets get real, this is the government. (insert typical slashdot statement about writing to senators or voting your opinion - doesn't change the fact that most people in the country simply do not CARE about this at all).
Gosh, what next? The properties of fluids are the same on Earth and Mars.
I know you weren't really trolling, but seriously you need to reexamine your understanding of the scientific process.
The fact that there are dustdevils on mars isn't new - the scientists I worked with on MER had concluded that there were plenty nearby from satalite imagery (they seem to be formed often in craters and leave trails, as seen in some unreleased satalite imagery). We've had prior observations of effects of dust devils, as described in this paper, and even a few other movies (see bottom of page), but this is our first look *UP CLOSE*. (also of note is this satellite image from the Mars Global Surveyer)
The point here is not "we discovered dustdevils on mars, look pretty picture," the point is that the assumption that physics works the same on mars allows us to properly interpret this *much* better imagery of dust devils and come up with a lot of useful information about the atmosphere, wind speeds, grain size, etc.
I think this attitude of "gee whiz this isn't new" is why a lot of good science doesn't get funded these days. Just because something is "obvious" doesn't make it right, and just because an experiment or observation is not novel does not mean we have nothing to learn from it!
Not exactly. Quantum computers can simulate classical computers with no problems. That's one of the tenets of quantum computation.
If by "no problems" you mean "severe and most likely insurmountable quantum coherence issues". Any quantum computer big enough to simulate a modern sized classical computer will contain so many qubits as to have problems with interference from the outside world. IIRC the problem of quantum coherence is roughly exponential in the number of qubits in a system (one of the reason we don't have 1000 qubit computers sitting around). Just having enough qubits to remember my RAM would get pretty ridiculous.
The truth is that quantum computers, in the forseeable future, will likely be an orthogonal type of computing system to classical computers - a coprocessor used for certain problems with small memory requirements but large search spaces. Many of our most important computations lie in this regime, but I doubt quantum computers will outperform classical computers on most ordinary stuff (i.e. word processing, running a webserver, handling large databases) due to its seriality and memory intensive nature. (Insert quote like "640 k ought to be enough for anybody" here)
Also, the fact that quantum computers can factor large integers efficiently necessarily implies that they can do other NP-complete problems efficiently, such as the traveling salesman problem.
It implies no such thing. Traveling salesman problem is NP-complete, and while we have no solid proof that a quantum computer cannot solve an NP-complete problem in polynomial time, Shor's algorithm is also in no way any kind of proof, as integer factorization is merely NP, not fully NP-complete as you claimed.
Yes, IAWAUGTOQC (I am writing an undergrad thesis on quantum computation).
Yes, I do have a degree in physics. You may wish to check said thesis in light of errors explained above.
Though I do like the basic blocks, my favorite set was the Space Police as a kid. How about you guys?
I really enjoyed the Space Police sets (they were quite reconfigurable), however I think the Blacktron had quite an appeal to them - they were the "bad" guys. Lots of glowing neon green plastic, hard to beat that!
With no atmosphere, heat transfer slows down. The only heat loss on the moon would occur by conduction into the surface of the moon.
Actually there could easily be heat loss due to thermal radiation - all warm matter emits electromagnetic radiation... we just tend not to notice because in a normal environment things are pretty much in equalibrium.
This is how rockets etc cool down in space - they radiate away.
My first question is this: The vocal cords are resonators, they move because air is moving over them. If the cords aren't making any noise, it's because they aren't moving. If they aren't moving how does this system pick up their movement
You are not quite correct. Vocal chords create sound by oscillating, yes, however they also tense and relax to control the pitch of the sound they produce. Air is not required to tense or relax these muscles - indeed if you were given appropriate feedback you could easily learn to control this even when not breathing (these phones are an example of such feedback).
Also remember that the movements of the soft pallet, the jaw, and the lips determine the sound that is made, not only the vocal chords.
As an experiment try placing a hand on the side of your neck while you speak - there are several distinct types of motions that you can easily feel and identify. This system is no different - I believe Hellen Keller learned to talk in part by feeling all of these muscle motions etc.
I've seen articles about this technology before, a year or so ago. The author stated that he tried the technology and it actually worked - I see no scientific reason it could not. This could be really annoying though - seeing people walking around mouthing words without knowing what they are saying. Such is the price of technological progress.
Today, the preferred system is 3Ghz, 64bit, with at least 2 gigs of RAM. Why? What's the point of such a powerful system? Speed! That's the point. Speed is important. Code efficiency is important. But, as programmers continue to deny this and produce poorly written and bloated/slow apps or use inefficient languages, the time will come when a 6Ghz processor is not enough. Doesn't that sound stupid?
If there was money to be made by making that WeatherThing or UltimateMP3 player fast and efficient - companies would do that. There's plenty of programmers out there capable of writing in or learning more low level languages - of optimizing each loop or branch. The problem is that people are not willing to pay all of the extra associated with the development and testing of software written with risky optimizations (optimizations tend to complicate and obfuscate code, reduce abstraction, etc) in unsafe languages.
The truth is the consumer would rather spend an extra $100 to get enough RAM then spend $10 per program on their PC (that adds up faster) for the programmers to program it "correctly." It's not economically efficient, at least not in the eyes of the consumers.
Why do you think so many kitchen appliances last only a year or two nowaways? Or current VCRs which almost qualify as "disposable." People are rarely willing to pay extra when they think the low cost option is "good enough." In some ways this is what killed the Mac - it was better according to many metrics, but PCs were "good enough" for the average consumer, and the price difference wasn't justifyable.
A computer is a tool to get work done, nothing more. If people valued security, reliability, and efficiency enough, most software would be secure, reliable and efficeint. But people value features and low price, so that's what the market gives them.
Look on the bright side - at least compilers are getting better.
If you trust RMS today, then use the GPL. If you trust RMS and all his succssors in the future forever, certain they can never be bought, bribed, or bludgeoned, then use GPL plus "at your option, any later version"
GPLv2 states clearly:
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
This means unless you specifically do not allow future versions (by claiming a specific version number), implictly you do.
Bill Nye has been quite active in the outreach efforts for the Mars Exploration Rovers mission. Back in the summer of 2003, at a launch party, I had the pleasure of sharing a few drinks with him on the beach one evening, and he was telling me about his ideas for this show. It sounded very cool - Mr. Nye is very insightful and is rightly concerned about a lot of these serious issues.
A side note - he really seems to hate people making a big fuss over him being "the science guy" (then again with that annoying theme song, who wouldn't?). He's just a very sharp guy who has a lot of interest in science and outreach. I think he'll be quite capable at holding the attention of adults.
Also, when he was telling me about the show, it was originally entitled "Through the Eyes of Nye," I wonder why they changed it...
Does anyone find it a bit disconcerting that answers.com gets ad revenue for wikipedia's content. Exactly how much is google funding wikipedia? IMO, they should fund the entire operation considering how much money they (and answers.com) must be making off the content. Think of how much traffic google must generate to the "definition" link in each search.
I for one do not. Wikipedia content is liscenced under the GNU Free Documentation Liscense. If they wanted to prevent people from making money off of it, they could have chosen a different liscense.
Anything that aids dissemination of accurate information over the internet is a Good Thing IMHO, and if they can make money from it, more power to them.
Motion of the rovers? I would imagine the lower moisture levels (if any) would make the dust there less sticky
While that is certainly true to some extent, extremely dry air, like that found on mars, allows large static electric charges to build up (especially considering how close the atmosphere is to vaccuum). MER scientists speculate that a lot of dust buildup is caused by electrostatic attraction (I have even heard this in regards to the wheels, but am unsure how well verified that claim is).
On the other hand, there are some places on the rover where we want dust to build up!
I'd be curious to know if the rovers went through any serious inclines just bfore the power boost.
The science team has noted that both rovers were on an incline during the cleaning events. It is considered to be unlikely to be a cooincidence, considering how often the rovers are flat, though it still could be.
Will the next batch of rovers be equipped with windsocks, to measure the direction of the wind? And what do you call those spinning things to measure airspeed?
They are called anemometers. Some of the less advanced models do use spinning cups, however this can interfere with the wind flow you are studying (especially for small phenomenon length scales) and only works for two dimensions. There is another type, called an
Acoustic Anemometer (don't be afraid to click on ferret.com.au:)) that uses sound advection (sound waves dragged along by the wind) to determine wind velocity in up to three dimensions.
A researcher friend of mine at Cornell University is working on using this concept on Mars, but AFAIK it's not been selected for any mission just yet. It's much more difficult because the atmosphere on mars is so thin that it attenuates signals at those frequencies very quickly.
Calling it an "animation" is stretching it pretty far. The second frame isn't even on-register with the first one, so it's really just a pair of "with" and "without" snapshots.
I used to work on MER, and I discussed this issue with Daniel Crotty (the man who made the animation featured here), and it was decided that:
Good coregistration was too difficult with the available information. I've written coregistration code before, for the CAHV linearized images, however there are serious problems when using the CAHVOR or CAHVORE model images (Navcam is CAHVOR). This is because not only is the distortion in the model nonlinear, but it depends on the distance of the point from the camera - something that we can only approximate using a planar surface model. My suggestion for coregistration, given the current information, would be to do feature matching to generate a set of "equivilent" points in each image plane, and create a function which, given a relative position and orientation, would generate rays from each matching point. A nonlinear optimization algorithm (perhaps simplex method solver) would then iterate until it found a relative position/orientation that minimized the mean square distance between "equivilent" rays. I believe this is similar to how much motion tracking software works. This is, however, quite difficult to do without a preprogrammed software package designed to do this. After this the second image would still have to be projected on to the planar model of Mars, which is also nontrivial.
From a purely scientific point of view, "proper" coregistration is almost entirely unnecessary. Because of the fact that the phenomenon is so far away, the far field effect takes care of almost all of the error. There is a two dimensional coregistration method that could be used for this purpose (Alex Hayes, Cornell '03, described it in his honors thesis) using multiple fourier transforms, one in linear space (for shifts), and one in radial/logarithmic space (for rotations and scaling).
Anyways I think the current image serves the public just fine. The file is so large because it was created in GIMP, which does not seem to support LZW compression of GIF images for a legal (?) reason. (I thought the patent expired...)
As for it not being an animation... how many frames do you need for something to be an animation?
Well, it would appear that if they deny your eloquent request you just have to use http://www.orbitz-sucks.com which might not be covered under the TOS.
Am I the only person who finds it ironic that you have to use orbitz-sucks.com, because orbitz sucks?
*grin*
Alright - screw my karma - I'm disgusted by the sheer level of anti-religious groupthink that occurs on this web site, and also by the tactics that are used to suppress religious views.
"OK, hatred for Jews is stupid (after all, even Jesus was a Jew)"
And so it's OK for Muslims, who don't view Jesus as a Messiah, to be antisemetic? Nice logic: by it, you're allowed to hate people you're not forced to relate with.
Hey I have a great idea - how about arguing against what he said and not words you decide to put in his mouth. For instance, stealing from people is wrong, but stealing from your parents is plain stupid - you are likely to be hurt in the process. By saying that I do not imply that it is OK to steal from someone because "you are not related to them." You don't like what this guy is saying, how about not putting words in his mouth?
"Gays, on the other hand, have free will and they do what they choose to do."
It's really simple: if one could choose one's sexual orientation, then a heterosexual man could choose to be gay. Since you're the one making the assertion, I have to ask you: Have you ever tried being gay? Or are you so unwilling to try to tread a mile in the shoes of those who you would "save?"
I'm sure he wants to save criminals too - does that mean he should try doing things he feels are wrong (i.e. violating his conscience) just to gain a better understanding? That's insane!
""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13."
So God didn't have room on those stone tablets to jot down "Don't be gay" on Mount Sinai? Pretty interesting that Ol' Infallible Himself was able to include relatively minor things like "take a day off every week" and "put up with your parents" but seemed to think that an outright capital offense wasn't worth mentioning.
I think you'll find out that things like rape and incest (things we feel are bad still today in modern society) were also offenses of similar magnitude - do you really think a list of 10 things can meaningfully cover all possible "really bad" actions?
And Jesus was crucified before he was able to do his key "Don't be gay" sermon? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless what you want to have done unto you is... hey, where are these Romans taking me?"
The vast majority of Jesus's sermons did not focus on what not to do but on having the correct heart attitude. Once again, he didn't say "don't rape people" but yet that's still an important part of the religion (and society). I don't know why he felt it was unnecessary to say this (or that those recording it did not record it) but perhaps people of the time already knew that was wrong?The new testiment, however, does contain several warnings against homosexuality.
You, as a Christian, have the trinity itself, not to mention the list of prophets, all telling you how to live your life properly and all, none of which really got around to the all-important "Don't be gay" commandment, and so you're giving a collection of these insane Biblical footnotes the same weight, especially when said footnote seems to fly in the face of one of the Ten Commandments?
I do not understand how this illogic gets modded up. You have created a false dichotomy - Ten Commandments vs Stuff Not In The Ten Commandments. Maybe the Ten Commandments are just the Ten most important - notice there is no dietary law etc - yet many Jews to this day still observe it.
"Who knowing the judgment of God,"
Knowing the unknowable, hm? So much for Christian humility...
The *ENTIRE* message of Christianity is that it is possible to have a direct, personal connection of God - through the revelation provided in the Bible, and through personal prayer. Whether that's true or not, who's
Slashdot Mirror
There's some good discussion about this going on in #space at irc.freenode.org, I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in the topic. Also we've been talking about software issues affecting the rover (if we get to sol 1000, just about every piece of ground software will be inoperable). It's a cool place, check it out.
Cheers,
Justin Wick
P.S. First accepted story! w00t!
This is cool, but the mantle is hardly the center of the earth. I'm much more interested in this - a proposal to create a molten-iron probe capable of actually reaching the core of the earth. A hundred thousand tons or more of the stuff would be poured into an artificial crevice in the earth, where it would sink down through the mantle.
The trick seems to be finding a probe that can ride the iron blob the whole way down, and keep it hot (probably through radioactivity). This was also considered as a way to dispose of nuclear waste.
At only $10 billion, this seems like a very hot possibility for exploring the mysteries of the earth. Just like sending a man to the moon, sending a manmade object to the center of the earth would be a seven-sigma experience.
They won't do it - not yet at least. I mean, I'd really like to see it - inexpensive Macs that are as fast as they are beautiful, that'd really be a seven-sigma experience, but it's not going to happen. With increased interest in IBM processors from Sony and Microsoft, it seems like IBM will continue to be a good place for Apple to stay, at least good enough to outweigh the benefits of switching to AMD or Intel. There's no way Apple will want to compete directly with commodity PCs (the Clone Wars showed that much). Apple could do it, but the cost to the community would be severe. Is it me, or is this story simply more uninformed rumors?
I agree that Roland's "stories" have got to stop - but is there anything we can do to further this end? (and I don't mean hack/ddos his site, although I'm surprised that hasn't happenned yet). I'm all for complaining when things suck, but seriously is there anything we *CAN* do to stop this? Maybe a firefox plugin that filters Roland out?
I know that the editors don't actually read the site - the dupes pretty much prove that - but seriously, I'm paying for this site. I made a choice to subscribe, before Roland came around. Slashdot has had it's moments but seriously... Come on guys!
I actually find it easier and more convenient to stick real notes onto my monitor than work with those things on my desktop. The notes are always on top, can be moved easily if necessary, and can adhere to the frame of the monitor to stay out of the way
Actually in Mac OS 10.4, the postit notes widget can be made to do all of that. This hint at MacOSXHints.com shows how to keep the stickies always on top. They are easy to move and can be put back into the dashboard at any time. Maybe not as good as on the rim of your monitor, though.
I wouldn't worry too much about this one - the engineers are already using the engineering test rovers to test possible means of escape here on earth. The test rovers have proven invaluable in the past for modelling such complex situations (where computer models would be unlikely to be of much help).
The rover had made it many kilometers, I don't a little sand dune is going to stop it. All the scientists I've spoken to about this seemed optimistic (which was not how they felt about the spirit anomoly back in January 2004) so... I'm not worried just yet.
Does make for some very cool pictures though!
-- Justin
I guess I mean: does this really mean anything important to a scientist, or is it just eyecandy for the taxpayers?
They have teams. Nothing is done because of individual interest. It is a huge beuracracy, you have managment like any business, that directs the scientists.
Well, yes and no. One of the scientists I work with at Cornell University is in the Atmospheric interest group of the MER project. The science team is broken up into interest groups such as Atmospheric, Geology, Soils, Long Term Planning, etc, which allows for parallel planning. Every day there is a Science Operations Working Group meeting, at which the agenda is decided - plans are merged and different courses of actions are argued. But don't think for a moment that there's never been anything done by MER simply because a single scientist thought it was important. Professor Squyres once called in on a day he wasn't even working to make sure panoramic cameras got some good images of the micrometeorite impact.
I think it would be cool if places like NASA let scientists pick thier projects.
I worked at JPL as an intern, and then as an operations staff worker for MER, and I can say that the people there are certainly not all working on projects that they did not choose. In fact, many were hired to work on a specific project, and while they usually move on afterwards, it's not like they are often stuck working on some project they hate. Indeed, many scientists/engineers work for NASA for such low pay precisely because they are working on something much more interesting to them than they would in industry for twice the money.
And it would make people feel like they are contributing to discovery, rather than living a mundane dilbertesq life.
Anyone working for NASA that feels that way is doing something wrong - when I was at JPL we had our share of management problems and budget issues, but it was anything *BUT* dilbert. Most of the coworkers are as crazy as you, the ideas that are being worked on even crazier... The pioneer feeling doesn't seem to really fade... even if what you are working on has been done before many times, it's still new, because it's innnnn spaaaaaaaaaaaaace!.
Come to think of it, why don't they run NASA like sourceforge.
Because most people aren't rocket scientists? Because spreading around responsibility too thinly is the surest way to see that nothing gets done (or no one is held accountable)?
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see the NASA change to be more agile, more risk-taking and more "open ended" in some ways - but lets get real, this is the government. (insert typical slashdot statement about writing to senators or voting your opinion - doesn't change the fact that most people in the country simply do not CARE about this at all).
Gosh, what next? The properties of fluids are the same on Earth and Mars.
I know you weren't really trolling, but seriously you need to reexamine your understanding of the scientific process.
The fact that there are dustdevils on mars isn't new - the scientists I worked with on MER had concluded that there were plenty nearby from satalite imagery (they seem to be formed often in craters and leave trails, as seen in some unreleased satalite imagery). We've had prior observations of effects of dust devils, as described in this paper, and even a few other movies (see bottom of page), but this is our first look *UP CLOSE*. (also of note is this satellite image from the Mars Global Surveyer)
The point here is not "we discovered dustdevils on mars, look pretty picture," the point is that the assumption that physics works the same on mars allows us to properly interpret this *much* better imagery of dust devils and come up with a lot of useful information about the atmosphere, wind speeds, grain size, etc.
I think this attitude of "gee whiz this isn't new" is why a lot of good science doesn't get funded these days. Just because something is "obvious" doesn't make it right, and just because an experiment or observation is not novel does not mean we have nothing to learn from it!
Not exactly. Quantum computers can simulate classical computers with no problems. That's one of the tenets of quantum computation.
If by "no problems" you mean "severe and most likely insurmountable quantum coherence issues". Any quantum computer big enough to simulate a modern sized classical computer will contain so many qubits as to have problems with interference from the outside world. IIRC the problem of quantum coherence is roughly exponential in the number of qubits in a system (one of the reason we don't have 1000 qubit computers sitting around). Just having enough qubits to remember my RAM would get pretty ridiculous.
The truth is that quantum computers, in the forseeable future, will likely be an orthogonal type of computing system to classical computers - a coprocessor used for certain problems with small memory requirements but large search spaces. Many of our most important computations lie in this regime, but I doubt quantum computers will outperform classical computers on most ordinary stuff (i.e. word processing, running a webserver, handling large databases) due to its seriality and memory intensive nature. (Insert quote like "640 k ought to be enough for anybody" here)
Also, the fact that quantum computers can factor large integers efficiently necessarily implies that they can do other NP-complete problems efficiently, such as the traveling salesman problem.
It implies no such thing. Traveling salesman problem is NP-complete, and while we have no solid proof that a quantum computer cannot solve an NP-complete problem in polynomial time, Shor's algorithm is also in no way any kind of proof, as integer factorization is merely NP, not fully NP-complete as you claimed.
Yes, IAWAUGTOQC (I am writing an undergrad thesis on quantum computation).
Yes, I do have a degree in physics. You may wish to check said thesis in light of errors explained above.
Though I do like the basic blocks, my favorite set was the Space Police as a kid. How about you guys?
:)
:)
I really enjoyed the Space Police sets (they were quite reconfigurable), however I think the Blacktron had quite an appeal to them - they were the "bad" guys. Lots of glowing neon green plastic, hard to beat that!
They even inspired my friend to create an epic Lego space model/fan fiction website which has some interesting models and reading
The M-Trons were also super cool... Legos + Magnets = Refridgerator Outpost Beta
With no atmosphere, heat transfer slows down. The only heat loss on the moon would occur by conduction into the surface of the moon.
Actually there could easily be heat loss due to thermal radiation - all warm matter emits electromagnetic radiation... we just tend not to notice because in a normal environment things are pretty much in equalibrium.
This is how rockets etc cool down in space - they radiate away.
My first question is this: The vocal cords are resonators, they move because air is moving over them. If the cords aren't making any noise, it's because they aren't moving. If they aren't moving how does this system pick up their movement
You are not quite correct. Vocal chords create sound by oscillating, yes, however they also tense and relax to control the pitch of the sound they produce. Air is not required to tense or relax these muscles - indeed if you were given appropriate feedback you could easily learn to control this even when not breathing (these phones are an example of such feedback).
Also remember that the movements of the soft pallet, the jaw, and the lips determine the sound that is made, not only the vocal chords.
As an experiment try placing a hand on the side of your neck while you speak - there are several distinct types of motions that you can easily feel and identify. This system is no different - I believe Hellen Keller learned to talk in part by feeling all of these muscle motions etc.
I've seen articles about this technology before, a year or so ago. The author stated that he tried the technology and it actually worked - I see no scientific reason it could not. This could be really annoying though - seeing people walking around mouthing words without knowing what they are saying. Such is the price of technological progress.
Today, the preferred system is 3Ghz, 64bit, with at least 2 gigs of RAM. Why? What's the point of such a powerful system? Speed! That's the point. Speed is important. Code efficiency is important. But, as programmers continue to deny this and produce poorly written and bloated/slow apps or use inefficient languages, the time will come when a 6Ghz processor is not enough. Doesn't that sound stupid?
If there was money to be made by making that WeatherThing or UltimateMP3 player fast and efficient - companies would do that. There's plenty of programmers out there capable of writing in or learning more low level languages - of optimizing each loop or branch. The problem is that people are not willing to pay all of the extra associated with the development and testing of software written with risky optimizations (optimizations tend to complicate and obfuscate code, reduce abstraction, etc) in unsafe languages.
The truth is the consumer would rather spend an extra $100 to get enough RAM then spend $10 per program on their PC (that adds up faster) for the programmers to program it "correctly." It's not economically efficient, at least not in the eyes of the consumers.
Why do you think so many kitchen appliances last only a year or two nowaways? Or current VCRs which almost qualify as "disposable." People are rarely willing to pay extra when they think the low cost option is "good enough." In some ways this is what killed the Mac - it was better according to many metrics, but PCs were "good enough" for the average consumer, and the price difference wasn't justifyable.
A computer is a tool to get work done, nothing more. If people valued security, reliability, and efficiency enough, most software would be secure, reliable and efficeint. But people value features and low price, so that's what the market gives them.
Look on the bright side - at least compilers are getting better.
GPLv2 states clearly: This means unless you specifically do not allow future versions (by claiming a specific version number), implictly you do.
Now THAT is what I call a front page advertisement :)
Bill Nye has been quite active in the outreach efforts for the Mars Exploration Rovers mission. Back in the summer of 2003, at a launch party, I had the pleasure of sharing a few drinks with him on the beach one evening, and he was telling me about his ideas for this show. It sounded very cool - Mr. Nye is very insightful and is rightly concerned about a lot of these serious issues.
A side note - he really seems to hate people making a big fuss over him being "the science guy" (then again with that annoying theme song, who wouldn't?). He's just a very sharp guy who has a lot of interest in science and outreach. I think he'll be quite capable at holding the attention of adults.
Also, when he was telling me about the show, it was originally entitled "Through the Eyes of Nye," I wonder why they changed it...
Does anyone find it a bit disconcerting that answers.com gets ad revenue for wikipedia's content. Exactly how much is google funding wikipedia? IMO, they should fund the entire operation considering how much money they (and answers.com) must be making off the content. Think of how much traffic google must generate to the "definition" link in each search.
I for one do not. Wikipedia content is liscenced under the GNU Free Documentation Liscense. If they wanted to prevent people from making money off of it, they could have chosen a different liscense.
Anything that aids dissemination of accurate information over the internet is a Good Thing IMHO, and if they can make money from it, more power to them.
Motion of the rovers? I would imagine the lower moisture levels (if any) would make the dust there less sticky
While that is certainly true to some extent, extremely dry air, like that found on mars, allows large static electric charges to build up (especially considering how close the atmosphere is to vaccuum). MER scientists speculate that a lot of dust buildup is caused by electrostatic attraction (I have even heard this in regards to the wheels, but am unsure how well verified that claim is).
On the other hand, there are some places on the rover where we want dust to build up!
I'd be curious to know if the rovers went through any serious inclines just bfore the power boost.
The science team has noted that both rovers were on an incline during the cleaning events. It is considered to be unlikely to be a cooincidence, considering how often the rovers are flat, though it still could be.
Cheers,
Justin Wick
Will the next batch of rovers be equipped with windsocks, to measure the direction of the wind? And what do you call those spinning things to measure airspeed?
:)) that uses sound advection (sound waves dragged along by the wind) to determine wind velocity in up to three dimensions.
They are called anemometers. Some of the less advanced models do use spinning cups, however this can interfere with the wind flow you are studying (especially for small phenomenon length scales) and only works for two dimensions. There is another type, called an Acoustic Anemometer (don't be afraid to click on ferret.com.au
A researcher friend of mine at Cornell University is working on using this concept on Mars, but AFAIK it's not been selected for any mission just yet. It's much more difficult because the atmosphere on mars is so thin that it attenuates signals at those frequencies very quickly.
I used to work on MER, and I discussed this issue with Daniel Crotty (the man who made the animation featured here), and it was decided that:
Anyways I think the current image serves the public just fine. The file is so large because it was created in GIMP, which does not seem to support LZW compression of GIF images for a legal (?) reason. (I thought the patent expired...)
As for it not being an animation... how many frames do you need for something to be an animation?
Cheers,
Justin Wick
A SCO on the rocks? No thanks, I'd like to keep my dinner down :)
FCC to Fine Curses More Then Nuke Violations
Uh, maybe the nuclear power industry is better at following government guidelines?
(is it me or is this a non-story?)
Well, it would appear that if they deny your eloquent request you just have to use http://www.orbitz-sucks.com which might not be covered under the TOS.
Am I the only person who finds it ironic that you have to use orbitz-sucks.com, because orbitz sucks?
*grin*
Alright - screw my karma - I'm disgusted by the sheer level of anti-religious groupthink that occurs on this web site, and also by the tactics that are used to suppress religious views.
"OK, hatred for Jews is stupid (after all, even Jesus was a Jew)"
And so it's OK for Muslims, who don't view Jesus as a Messiah, to be antisemetic? Nice logic: by it, you're allowed to hate people you're not forced to relate with.
Hey I have a great idea - how about arguing against what he said and not words you decide to put in his mouth. For instance, stealing from people is wrong, but stealing from your parents is plain stupid - you are likely to be hurt in the process. By saying that I do not imply that it is OK to steal from someone because "you are not related to them." You don't like what this guy is saying, how about not putting words in his mouth?
"Gays, on the other hand, have free will and they do what they choose to do."
It's really simple: if one could choose one's sexual orientation, then a heterosexual man could choose to be gay. Since you're the one making the assertion, I have to ask you: Have you ever tried being gay? Or are you so unwilling to try to tread a mile in the shoes of those who you would "save?"
I'm sure he wants to save criminals too - does that mean he should try doing things he feels are wrong (i.e. violating his conscience) just to gain a better understanding? That's insane!
""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13."
So God didn't have room on those stone tablets to jot down "Don't be gay" on Mount Sinai? Pretty interesting that Ol' Infallible Himself was able to include relatively minor things like "take a day off every week" and "put up with your parents" but seemed to think that an outright capital offense wasn't worth mentioning.
I think you'll find out that things like rape and incest (things we feel are bad still today in modern society) were also offenses of similar magnitude - do you really think a list of 10 things can meaningfully cover all possible "really bad" actions?
And Jesus was crucified before he was able to do his key "Don't be gay" sermon? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless what you want to have done unto you is... hey, where are these Romans taking me?"
The vast majority of Jesus's sermons did not focus on what not to do but on having the correct heart attitude. Once again, he didn't say "don't rape people" but yet that's still an important part of the religion (and society). I don't know why he felt it was unnecessary to say this (or that those recording it did not record it) but perhaps people of the time already knew that was wrong?The new testiment, however, does contain several warnings against homosexuality.
You, as a Christian, have the trinity itself, not to mention the list of prophets, all telling you how to live your life properly and all, none of which really got around to the all-important "Don't be gay" commandment, and so you're giving a collection of these insane Biblical footnotes the same weight, especially when said footnote seems to fly in the face of one of the Ten Commandments?
I do not understand how this illogic gets modded up. You have created a false dichotomy - Ten Commandments vs Stuff Not In The Ten Commandments. Maybe the Ten Commandments are just the Ten most important - notice there is no dietary law etc - yet many Jews to this day still observe it.
"Who knowing the judgment of God,"
Knowing the unknowable, hm? So much for Christian humility...
The *ENTIRE* message of Christianity is that it is possible to have a direct, personal connection of God - through the revelation provided in the Bible, and through personal prayer. Whether that's true or not, who's
Okay, who was down for Timothy on Saturday night for the /. Dupe Pool?
3 96745
:-D
Looks like Ohreally_factor (593551) was: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=136451&cid=11
Different story but, clearly Timothy on Saturday... Though, timothy is a good bet for any day