It would slowly drift off into space due to shortage of gravity and solar wind. But so slowly humans wouldn't care (we'll be long past the need for an atmosphere, technologically speaking (living in our robot bodies), by the time an atmosphere we could breathe would have time to drift off into an unusable state.
Mars has plenty of mass to hold atmosphere over human timescales. If we built an atmosphere once, civilization on mars would have time to collapse and rise again to the point of being able to build the atmosphere again before they'd be in trouble.
That said, one of the obvious candidates for warming the surface of mars would be to drop a lot of asteroids (and one of the moons) on it, and that would help the gravity a little. Being only a little more adventurous, you could consider dropping one of the moons of jupiter on mars (ganymede would add about 20% to the mass total). Then you'd have a bit of a wait for cooling, though. As a plus, it would not be (comparatively) hard to use the impact to knock mars into a tighter solar orbit, improving your plant growing situation.
The near vacuum surface pressure combined with intense cold will kill cactus. Cactus lives in the desert. What you need to plant is something green that grows well in Antarctica. So go look at pictures of Antarctica, and pick your favorite plant from there.
Most people don't work a job (in the U.S.) from age 0-15 years, nor do they work weekends. The highest estimate I can find for the average american workweek is 46 hours, and even crappy jobs allow for 3 weeks of vacation per year. That comes to 2254 work hours out of 8760 = 25%. And again, that only counts for your working years, so you have to exclude both the educational and retirement years to get that high. Realistically, most people work less than 20% of their lives, at least in the US.
I think there are lots of opportunities to do something that has real meaning. I worked for the City of Hope for a while, and developed some neuron modeling software that is helping to cure Alzheimer's. I didn't get paid a lot to do it, but I don't regret the decision to do it. History may well not remember me, though, as history likes to remember one person per accomplishment wherever possible (it's interesting to notice how recently watson and crick's discovery of dna is becoming watson's double helix, I don't think crick is long for the history books). Still, I am content to have made a signficant contribution.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with MS. They're a legendarily abusive place to work. Consistently ranked among the worst workplaces. Now that the stock deal isn't so good, they're having serious retention problems.
Working for an evil organization may have great perks, but in all fairness, you have to factor in the soul suck cost, which clearly wasn't fairly weighed in the survey. I mean, if you have a great work environment, but cry yourself to sleep on a bed made of money from the existential angst, that's a fool's trade.
There are actually a few people out there working towards goals other than money, and some with a longer term view. Would you take twice as much money for the next 5 years in exchange for one third as much for the following five years? If not, then you should factor in career advancement potential. You admit in another post you wouldn't work in iraq. Would you work in an unpleasantly hot server room for $100 per year? $50? (I hope not.) Would you consider being payed only 80% as much at a job where you might be remember for all of history as part of the team that cured cancer? Would you take just a 10% increase to work with loud annoying jerks all day? A job isn't just a job, it's close to 20% of your life. You really should consider your overall quality of life carefully. A good work place can mean not needing as much money to decompress after the work day is done.
Because lots of businesses have purchase policies that specify XP, whereas not many consumers have purchase policies at all. And giving a consumer an XP system means having to deal with more support calls, and not getting a kickback from MS.
I'm pretty sure employers are not allowed to videotape their employees without informing them, and getting written consent. Otherwise, I have a great idea for a locker room camera at my workplace.
There's a brand new box of 10,000 plastic spoons at work. We recently used up the knives from the plastic knife box. It was more frustrating than ironic, though.
1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
Yes, that's exactly how music creators ought to make money.
2. AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
Yes, that's quite unfortunate.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
Which would end if music were free.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
Indeed, that's the point, all music should be treated equally: free.
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
Just make all music free, and eliminate the uneven playing field.
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
So... sue the ISPs? If we don't care about copyright, why do we care if the ISPs are facilitating infringement?
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
Maybe jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth aren't all we care about in life?
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
Who believed that or used it in their argument? You have to be pretty wealthy to afford the devices to use pirated materials.
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
Think it is wrong, or know it is illegal?
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Surprise, surprise, popular music is popular. Shocking.
I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment. Were you agreeing with me or disagreeing? I assume you are claiming that because the government licenses drivers, and therefore people drive responsibly, that the people driving responsibly are the ones being responsible, not the government, and thus government intervention achieves the desired goal. But that's not the definition of responsibility. That's the government taking charge, not the people. The behavior may be similar, but the motivation clearly isn't the same. And the problem in general with the authoritative point of view is that all the research says that people start misbehaving as soon as the authority is out of view (ex: how many people speed when they can't see a cop car vs how many speed when they can?)
Nope, though you obviously have to remember to do something with your feet after the kicks to prevent that. (As a parallel, ask yourself: wouldn't you wind up standing on one leg if you kicked one opponent? Answer: no, you put your leg back down after.)
The body can't run in two directions, but it can throw two punches and two kicks at up to four different opponents at once, and if you know how to do this, times of danger turn out to be few and far between.
This number had 3 factors, one of which was 'small'. The difficulty was reduced only by the number of bits remaining after the small factor was removed. So they still factored a 1017 bit number into two large primes.
Slashdot Mirror
It would slowly drift off into space due to shortage of gravity and solar wind. But so slowly humans wouldn't care (we'll be long past the need for an atmosphere, technologically speaking (living in our robot bodies), by the time an atmosphere we could breathe would have time to drift off into an unusable state.
Mars has plenty of mass to hold atmosphere over human timescales. If we built an atmosphere once, civilization on mars would have time to collapse and rise again to the point of being able to build the atmosphere again before they'd be in trouble.
That said, one of the obvious candidates for warming the surface of mars would be to drop a lot of asteroids (and one of the moons) on it, and that would help the gravity a little. Being only a little more adventurous, you could consider dropping one of the moons of jupiter on mars (ganymede would add about 20% to the mass total). Then you'd have a bit of a wait for cooling, though. As a plus, it would not be (comparatively) hard to use the impact to knock mars into a tighter solar orbit, improving your plant growing situation.
The near vacuum surface pressure combined with intense cold will kill cactus. Cactus lives in the desert. What you need to plant is something green that grows well in Antarctica. So go look at pictures of Antarctica, and pick your favorite plant from there.
Colonies will always be a fragile target for terrorists, the blues are right!
I wouldn't bother, as the sterilized soil and oceans means you're screwed in the long run.
* Interstellar travelers who want to see SuperNovae up close are advised to bring Sunglasses and Sunscreen.
I assumed he wanted an inkjet for some reason (since he requested an inkjet), for example, printing photos.
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-pa th=10581&pq-locale=en_US
Their new printers have half the ink costs of their closest competitors.
I'm fairly sure the grandparent meant cannot pay cash, not do not pay cash.
Oh, those are the actual words he used.
Most people don't work a job (in the U.S.) from age 0-15 years, nor do they work weekends. The highest estimate I can find for the average american workweek is 46 hours, and even crappy jobs allow for 3 weeks of vacation per year. That comes to 2254 work hours out of 8760 = 25%. And again, that only counts for your working years, so you have to exclude both the educational and retirement years to get that high. Realistically, most people work less than 20% of their lives, at least in the US.
I think there are lots of opportunities to do something that has real meaning. I worked for the City of Hope for a while, and developed some neuron modeling software that is helping to cure Alzheimer's. I didn't get paid a lot to do it, but I don't regret the decision to do it. History may well not remember me, though, as history likes to remember one person per accomplishment wherever possible (it's interesting to notice how recently watson and crick's discovery of dna is becoming watson's double helix, I don't think crick is long for the history books). Still, I am content to have made a signficant contribution.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with MS. They're a legendarily abusive place to work. Consistently ranked among the worst workplaces. Now that the stock deal isn't so good, they're having serious retention problems.
Working for an evil organization may have great perks, but in all fairness, you have to factor in the soul suck cost, which clearly wasn't fairly weighed in the survey.
I mean, if you have a great work environment, but cry yourself to sleep on a bed made of money from the existential angst, that's a fool's trade.
There are actually a few people out there working towards goals other than money, and some with a longer term view. Would you take twice as much money for the next 5 years in exchange for one third as much for the following five years? If not, then you should factor in career advancement potential. You admit in another post you wouldn't work in iraq. Would you work in an unpleasantly hot server room for $100 per year? $50? (I hope not.) Would you consider being payed only 80% as much at a job where you might be remember for all of history as part of the team that cured cancer? Would you take just a 10% increase to work with loud annoying jerks all day? A job isn't just a job, it's close to 20% of your life. You really should consider your overall quality of life carefully. A good work place can mean not needing as much money to decompress after the work day is done.
I found a similar deal at dell for my Powershot S80. Everyone was at $450-$500 at the time on pricegrabber. $300 one week at dell.
Because lots of businesses have purchase policies that specify XP, whereas not many consumers have purchase policies at all. And giving a consumer an XP system means having to deal with more support calls, and not getting a kickback from MS.
The most ironic part is that for all everyone makes fun of him, the internet is, in fact, mostly made up of a series of tubes.
I'm pretty sure employers are not allowed to videotape their employees without informing them, and getting written consent. Otherwise, I have a great idea for a locker room camera at my workplace.
There's a brand new box of 10,000 plastic spoons at work. We recently used up the knives from the plastic knife box. It was more frustrating than ironic, though.
1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
Yes, that's exactly how music creators ought to make money.
2. AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
Yes, that's quite unfortunate.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
Which would end if music were free.
4. Illegal file-sharers don't care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
Indeed, that's the point, all music should be treated equally: free.
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
Just make all music free, and eliminate the uneven playing field.
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
So
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth-it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
Maybe jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth aren't all we care about in life?
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
Who believed that or used it in their argument? You have to be pretty wealthy to afford the devices to use pirated materials.
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
Think it is wrong, or know it is illegal?
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Surprise, surprise, popular music is popular. Shocking.
I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment. Were you agreeing with me or disagreeing?
I assume you are claiming that because the government licenses drivers, and therefore people drive responsibly, that the people driving responsibly are the ones being responsible, not the government, and thus government intervention achieves the desired goal. But that's not the definition of responsibility. That's the government taking charge, not the people.
The behavior may be similar, but the motivation clearly isn't the same. And the problem in general with the authoritative point of view is that all the research says that people start misbehaving as soon as the authority is out of view (ex: how many people speed when they can't see a cop car vs how many speed when they can?)
I love the people who want parents to be responsible rather than the government, and so suggest that the government license parenting. Brilliant!
Nope, though you obviously have to remember to do something with your feet after the kicks to prevent that. (As a parallel, ask yourself: wouldn't you wind up standing on one leg if you kicked one opponent? Answer: no, you put your leg back down after.)
The body can't run in two directions, but it can throw two punches and two kicks at up to four different opponents at once, and if you know how to do this, times of danger turn out to be few and far between.
This number had 3 factors, one of which was 'small'. The difficulty was reduced only by the number of bits remaining after the small factor was removed. So they still factored a 1017 bit number into two large primes.