My guess is someone who enjoys a boxster or a BRZ usually isn't interested in driving a 4600 pound car. It's fat. It can only drive straight. It's a dragster without the excitement of the sound. Maybe some people who own 911 to show off in might switch to a Tesla, but a BRZ is a budget car, and a boxster is a budget Porsche.
Why don't you talk to Israelis about it? There is no doubt that the catholic church did a lot for European Jews during WWII and this has been officially acknowledged by Israel multiple times.
The Catholic and Protestant Churches supported both Nazism and Fascism.
Actually I think you're the one that is wrong on that one. And so was I until not so long ago. The main thing that can be said against the Catholic church is that it didn't openly oppose nazism under the war - but they surely opposed them. Read up on Pius XI and XII . Wikipedia is a start.
Why don't they use Hydrogen for things like this (one-time use balloon) and preserve more Helium for scientific and medical use (and for safe party balloons)?
I agree. It's a waste of a precious resource. Scientists have rung the alarm bell already on that one.
If you'd avoid definitions for a moment, my point would be clearer. There's a very important distinction for which Popper became well known: it's based on the idea of falsifiability. His thesis was that hard sciences were a lot better at creating falsifiable hypothesis. In layman's words, if you have a hypothesis that made down to earth predictions and if a testing apparatus showed the number 4 while it should have shown between 10 and 11, then you'd know the hypothesis was wrong. On the opposite side you had theories that would say people are motivated by love for their mother. And if someone said they didn't love their mother, then there would be this corollary that said people often suppressed that feeling so they would only think they didn't love their mother, So you had this kind of immunity that allowed people to hang on to a theory for life.
So Popper and others said, let scientific theories be those that are down to earth enough so that you know when they're wrong. it's not that only scientific theories have value, but they're much better at growing and evolving .
Now take a look at superstring theories. They have the problem with tests being out of reach. That means you're losing feedback from reality. The problems are serious enough for physicists to decide to find another area to work in because now it's just math. A few years they can manage, but a whole career is too much. You can still call it scientific, but the feedback loop is too weak. And I think that is unhealthy and in some ways it's a similar problem as the old unscientific social science theory.
Normally, the rule that it isn't science if it doesn't make testable predictions doesn't mean that something becomes unscientific if there are budget cuts or other such events that aren't themselves part of the scientific method.
This focus on scientific thinking is valuable but there are still good reasons to opt for the stronger interpretation, namely that if you're not going to be able to test, even if it's just for money reasons, then your scientific method is still damaged. It's not a black and white situation but if it had been too hard to test Einsteins general relativity he would have been in a very uncomfortable position.
I think the article touches on a subject that could be a major issue. We can think of a reactive mind as a mind that doesn't function when not stimulated, and an active mind as a mind that doesn't need stimulation in order to work. Then our addiction to stimuli, going all the way back to the walkman but steadily strengthening, would mean we're creating reactive minds that can't work autonomously anymore. All statistically speaking of course. Combine that with a shortening attention span and possibly we're losing some important skills. But I'm hypothesising. Note the difference however with 'boredom'. Whenever we talk about boredom it's treated as an internal stimulance to get your brain going. Well that remains to be seen. What I see happening is an internal stimulance to start surfing.
I started reading late '97 but wasn't convinced to actually sign up until sometime in '99. My guess is that you signed up early 2000. There were a lot of people who lurked and posted anon back then rather than sign up, so slightly higher IDs aren't really an indication that people missed the early days.
Something like that. Although with me it was probably first lurking, then registering, and only much later posting.
That is so rude, they're genuine authentic replica Rolex watches.
But no, apart from editorial deficiencies I think the site is still doing pretty well. I'm just less interested in it. The internet's a bit larger too.
.. if you only look at companies that are listed on the stock market. It's remarkable how Aramco manages to keep a low profile. It's not possible to put 'today's value' on it but estimates are always over a trillion dollars and reach up to 7 trillion.
To be fair, it may be just the name that has a low profile. 'saudi oil' is the same thing and it doesn't exactly have a low profile.
I'd pick that movie. It had cheap throwaway spiderlike robots that were launched in large amounts in an apartment buildig. They could squeeze through tiny openings and reach any place and this allowed them to search a whole building.
The robots in this article are just proof of concept of course. So easy to dismiss, as you can see by all the "nothing new, it's been done" posts on here - or anywhere for that matter.
I'm doing this from scratch so I'm sure I'm forgetting much but my argument was only about accumulation of small effects. If an object flies towards the sun, the amount of impulse, or energy it will capture will be proportional to the inverse square of the distance, and my conclusion was that if you accumulate this over 1 year, or 10 or 100(because you spotted it so much earlier) , it will not make a lot of difference. This will apply to painting an asteroid , putting a clever mirror on it to deflect light, or putting a solar sail on it. This reasoning does not apply to an asteroid following a roughly circular orbit. It's a dimensional argument. I don't need to know the numbers for it. Another example would be : if an asteroid has 10x bigger radius it can be spotted from 10 times further away. If it's coming at you that means you have 10 times more time. But the object is also 1000 times heavier. So is it harder to deflect or not? I'll think about that tomorrow.
I'll clarify how I'm doing just a bit better than guessing. It's not accurate but here goes: imagine you're using the sun to transfer impulse to deflect the comet and assume a constant speed of the comet. Now the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the sun, so the total transferred impulse will be an integral of x**-2 between start(S, large) and end distance(E, short). That is proportional to 1/E - 1/S. You can't gain much by starting earlier , the limit will be 1/E for an infinite starting distance
Now the angle of deflection, and thus the impulse you need to transfer should be smaller if the comet is still far away, but my guess is this would also be inversely proportional to the distance(double the distance, half the angle). In other words, it shouldn't matter much if E is closer by. I'm cutting a few corners but the idea I get from this is you can't gain much by increasing E or S.
Slashdot Mirror
It's weird. It's almost like you're not Tesla's target market.
That's of course the weird thing about being called car of the year. It needs the byline "for its target market".
My guess is someone who enjoys a boxster or a BRZ usually isn't interested in driving a 4600 pound car. It's fat. It can only drive straight. It's a dragster without the excitement of the sound. Maybe some people who own 911 to show off in might switch to a Tesla, but a BRZ is a budget car, and a boxster is a budget Porsche.
No, that was the first draft, but the legal department advised against that implementation.
On the other hand the good ones tend to cheat by starting from the whole grape. the rule is 'The wetter the better' . Talking about the pomace here.
Why don't you talk to Israelis about it? There is no doubt that the catholic church did a lot for European Jews during WWII and this has been officially acknowledged by Israel multiple times.
On the other hand, now he 'll be turning in his grave, which beats shaking your head by eh, a long way.
Actually I think you're the one that is wrong on that one. And so was I until not so long ago. The main thing that can be said against the Catholic church is that it didn't openly oppose nazism under the war - but they surely opposed them. Read up on Pius XI and XII . Wikipedia is a start.
Not when it's at low pressure. Didn't the old Appolo capsules operate at 1/3 atmosphere pure oxygen?
I can't tell, with what all the people believe in. But your confidence in mankind is touching :)
. That's news to me. I would have thought they'd just have argued that they're just following market rules - and they'd have a point.
I agree. It's a waste of a precious resource. Scientists have rung the alarm bell already on that one.
Takes a while...
If you'd avoid definitions for a moment, my point would be clearer. There's a very important distinction for which Popper became well known: it's based on the idea of falsifiability. His thesis was that hard sciences were a lot better at creating falsifiable hypothesis. In layman's words, if you have a hypothesis that made down to earth predictions and if a testing apparatus showed the number 4 while it should have shown between 10 and 11, then you'd know the hypothesis was wrong. On the opposite side you had theories that would say people are motivated by love for their mother. And if someone said they didn't love their mother, then there would be this corollary that said people often suppressed that feeling so they would only think they didn't love their mother, So you had this kind of immunity that allowed people to hang on to a theory for life.
So Popper and others said, let scientific theories be those that are down to earth enough so that you know when they're wrong. it's not that only scientific theories have value, but they're much better at growing and evolving .
Now take a look at superstring theories. They have the problem with tests being out of reach. That means you're losing feedback from reality. The problems are serious enough for physicists to decide to find another area to work in because now it's just math. A few years they can manage, but a whole career is too much. You can still call it scientific, but the feedback loop is too weak. And I think that is unhealthy and in some ways it's a similar problem as the old unscientific social science theory.
This focus on scientific thinking is valuable but there are still good reasons to opt for the stronger interpretation, namely that if you're not going to be able to test, even if it's just for money reasons, then your scientific method is still damaged. It's not a black and white situation but if it had been too hard to test Einsteins general relativity he would have been in a very uncomfortable position.
I think the article touches on a subject that could be a major issue. We can think of a reactive mind as a mind that doesn't function when not stimulated, and an active mind as a mind that doesn't need stimulation in order to work. Then our addiction to stimuli, going all the way back to the walkman but steadily strengthening, would mean we're creating reactive minds that can't work autonomously anymore. All statistically speaking of course. Combine that with a shortening attention span and possibly we're losing some important skills. But I'm hypothesising.
Note the difference however with 'boredom'. Whenever we talk about boredom it's treated as an internal stimulance to get your brain going. Well that remains to be seen. What I see happening is an internal stimulance to start surfing.
Something like that. Although with me it was probably first lurking, then registering, and only much later posting.
You won't. The real Anonymous Coward always disguises him or herself by posting under an UID. Those who post under that name are impostors.
That is so rude, they're genuine authentic replica Rolex watches.
But no, apart from editorial deficiencies I think the site is still doing pretty well. I'm just less interested in it. The internet's a bit larger too.
.. if you only look at companies that are listed on the stock market.
It's remarkable how Aramco manages to keep a low profile. It's not possible to put 'today's value' on it but estimates are always over a trillion dollars and reach up to 7 trillion.
To be fair, it may be just the name that has a low profile. 'saudi oil' is the same thing and it doesn't exactly have a low profile.
in any case it means the military will all switch to paper planes.
That's so rude. Look at it another way: bright bulbs aren't exactly environment friendly are they?
I'd pick that movie. It had cheap throwaway spiderlike robots that were launched in large amounts in an apartment buildig. They could squeeze through tiny openings and reach any place and this allowed them to search a whole building.
The robots in this article are just proof of concept of course. So easy to dismiss, as you can see by all the "nothing new, it's been done" posts on here - or anywhere for that matter.
I'm doing this from scratch so I'm sure I'm forgetting much but my argument was only about accumulation of small effects. If an object flies towards the sun, the amount of impulse, or energy it will capture will be proportional to the inverse square of the distance, and my conclusion was that if you accumulate this over 1 year, or 10 or 100(because you spotted it so much earlier) , it will not make a lot of difference. This will apply to painting an asteroid , putting a clever mirror on it to deflect light, or putting a solar sail on it. This reasoning does not apply to an asteroid following a roughly circular orbit. It's a dimensional argument. I don't need to know the numbers for it. Another example would be : if an asteroid has 10x bigger radius it can be spotted from 10 times further away. If it's coming at you that means you have 10 times more time. But the object is also 1000 times heavier. So is it harder to deflect or not? I'll think about that tomorrow.
I'll clarify how I'm doing just a bit better than guessing. It's not accurate but here goes:
imagine you're using the sun to transfer impulse to deflect the comet and assume a constant speed of the comet.
Now the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the sun, so the total transferred impulse will be an integral of x**-2 between start(S, large) and end distance(E, short).
That is proportional to 1/E - 1/S. You can't gain much by starting earlier , the limit will be 1/E for an infinite starting distance
Now the angle of deflection, and thus the impulse you need to transfer should be smaller if the comet is still far away, but my guess is this would also be inversely proportional to the distance(double the distance, half the angle). In other words, it shouldn't matter much if E is closer by. I'm cutting a few corners but the idea I get from this is you can't gain much by increasing E or S.
I remembered that the damage done went from 'mostly harmless' to 'takes our a whole city' in the range 10m-100m
You mean like, very very far from the sun where it's dark outside?