What AC said is true. One though has to remember to remove oils (including the gearbox, transmission, etc.) and fuel. Rest will work quite well as a reef seed.
Definitely this! If they also started checking if the same pages aren't available using HTTPS on other sites and presenting HTTPS links to users it would be golden!
If we assume that the monoliths were Von Neumann probes, then around a Type I civilisation could start such a program. I still don't think any Type I civilisation would have the technology to create machines that could bend space (which was used to move Bowman) or anti-gravity (which probably removed The Monolith from the valley in prehistoric times and was used generally to move them around in mere planetary spaces). The current energy estimates for FTL drives bending space place single monolith in the Type II category...
First, Type III does not mean harnessing "every bit of energy" in a galaxy as galaxies are highly varied. Second, there are billions of billions of billions of galaxies out there, harnessing few percent of power of a 100 galaxies gets you easily to Type III category. Besides, Kardashev scale is just one of the yardsticks you can use to measure civilizations. Other way of looking at type 1, 2 and 3 is a planetary civilisation, space fearing civilisation and galactic civilisation.
It still is actually possible using technology already available unlike earth's elevator that needs esoteric materials like carbon nanotubes. Remember that Mars has one 3rd of Earths gravity, you don't need 34,000km for geosynchronous orbit...
Because whole Europe (including Iceland) suffers from Monsoons and Tornadoes every year. Not to mention the monthly magnitude 9.0 earthquake... We so get used to catastrophes, that we missed the last week's Extinction Event meteorite that fell just outside Berlin, thankfully it landed on a parked 5 star NCAP car so everything played quite well.
Monoliths were made by a Type III civilisation (if not Type IV), we are Type 0 nearing on Type I it was said clearly in the books, of course it looks like magic to us. Plain penicillin would be like magic to anyone from 14th century let alone electricity in form of light, warming (microwave anyone?) and communication, that's only 600 years difference, you can't think what technology a civilisation 500 years older has, let alone few millennia or much, much, much more.
It's not so clear cut -- if the shape makes a big difference (40% fuel saving) then, if patents would be a sane system, no. But as patents are only a bit more broken than "democracy" in USA, then yes.
It's not like I can't buy Abidas shoes already that look very much the same like the Adidas ones. If I buy them I'm at fault myself. If Abidas started using the Adidas name, then it shouldn't be legal. But it would become a completely different case before.
It's put only a bit further than patenting a colour, the difference is, most people intuitively know that the amount of colours is limited. They don't think that the amount of shapes is limited, it's huge for any shapes, it's large for functional ones, but it's not infinite: http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
English? Don't know, though the names for million and above are basically the same for French, German, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish, etc. and they all use the long scale... The English speakers are the odd-balls, not the other way round. One would think that the UK wouldn't take ideas from States, but they started using the American scale in the '70s so it's not like people that remember its use died yet...
Last time I checked, meteorology was a study of atmosphere, you know, the stuff that's 100km thick and covers gigantic heat sinks in form of continents and oceans, is highly susceptible to amount and type of solar irradiation, force of solar wind, is influenced by presence and type of condensation nuclei, mountain ranges, etc. etc. it isn't a simple cubic container with largely uniform gas composition warmed by a uniform heat source warming it in whole at the same time.
Besides, the "experiment" you linked was testing just thermal properties of air using a single data point, without controlling the environment (placing a thermally susceptible experiment over a CRT screen, please...).
And no, I do not negate the results in the performed experiment, they are in line with widely accepted theories. Thing is, there is a much more potent and present in higher quantities greenhouse gas in the atmosphere: water. Atmosphere is too complex and we can't predict what temperature will be next Friday, let alone in ten years. There are too many unknowns and our computers are too slow to create good-enough models. As long as this doesn't change climate science will be just wild speculation, just like finance -- we are able to predict only general trends, in short time frames, when there are no large disturbances present. Shit hits the fan and the "experts" are either off by hundreds of miles (see recent tornadoes warnings) or sign (Polish GDP growth rate during the world crisis).
Slashdot Mirror
What AC said is true. One though has to remember to remove oils (including the gearbox, transmission, etc.) and fuel. Rest will work quite well as a reef seed.
With Soviet Apple YOU'RE the iGadget!
I'll get my coat.
Seconded for Kile, it's better than most of LaTeX editors (like the "sort-of-standard" TeXnic)
Exactly, it's like needing to install antivirus software on a voting machine.
Definitely this! If they also started checking if the same pages aren't available using HTTPS on other sites and presenting HTTPS links to users it would be golden!
At first I thought that the LCD would be the biggest problem, then then the fact that the vacuum is more conceptual than physical...
Now you're just trolling
If we assume that the monoliths were Von Neumann probes, then around a Type I civilisation could start such a program. I still don't think any Type I civilisation would have the technology to create machines that could bend space (which was used to move Bowman) or anti-gravity (which probably removed The Monolith from the valley in prehistoric times and was used generally to move them around in mere planetary spaces). The current energy estimates for FTL drives bending space place single monolith in the Type II category...
You are absolutely correct, but the 34,000km is so close to Earth's geostationary orbit that I though you did use the same values. Never mind then.
Clarke named them Type III in the book
First, Type III does not mean harnessing "every bit of energy" in a galaxy as galaxies are highly varied. Second, there are billions of billions of billions of galaxies out there, harnessing few percent of power of a 100 galaxies gets you easily to Type III category. Besides, Kardashev scale is just one of the yardsticks you can use to measure civilizations. Other way of looking at type 1, 2 and 3 is a planetary civilisation, space fearing civilisation and galactic civilisation.
It still is actually possible using technology already available unlike earth's elevator that needs esoteric materials like carbon nanotubes. Remember that Mars has one 3rd of Earths gravity, you don't need 34,000km for geosynchronous orbit...
But then, shapes that are more aerodynamic are also more pleasing to the eye, the difference is blurry.
I said 500, not 150. That is a big difference.
Because whole Europe (including Iceland) suffers from Monsoons and Tornadoes every year. Not to mention the monthly magnitude 9.0 earthquake... We so get used to catastrophes, that we missed the last week's Extinction Event meteorite that fell just outside Berlin, thankfully it landed on a parked 5 star NCAP car so everything played quite well.
Don't forget about colours, "Barbie pink" it was I think...
It's so totally bollocks I aren't even sure what the author claims...
businesses were sued out of existence before you know...
Yeah, the whole problem wasn't using Astrology book for (one of) the sources for the keeper of the database, it was living in the "land of the free".
Monoliths were made by a Type III civilisation (if not Type IV), we are Type 0 nearing on Type I it was said clearly in the books, of course it looks like magic to us. Plain penicillin would be like magic to anyone from 14th century let alone electricity in form of light, warming (microwave anyone?) and communication, that's only 600 years difference, you can't think what technology a civilisation 500 years older has, let alone few millennia or much, much, much more.
It's not so clear cut -- if the shape makes a big difference (40% fuel saving) then, if patents would be a sane system, no. But as patents are only a bit more broken than "democracy" in USA, then yes.
It's not like I can't buy Abidas shoes already that look very much the same like the Adidas ones. If I buy them I'm at fault myself. If Abidas started using the Adidas name, then it shouldn't be legal. But it would become a completely different case before.
It's put only a bit further than patenting a colour, the difference is, most people intuitively know that the amount of colours is limited. They don't think that the amount of shapes is limited, it's huge for any shapes, it's large for functional ones, but it's not infinite: http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
There's a difference between non obvious (as most 3G patents would be) and bloody obvious (as any geometrical shape is).
I'd suggest the judges to measure all people (and companies) using the same rule.
I'd be surprised if a Chinese manned expedition to Moon doesn't change US space policy...
English? Don't know, though the names for million and above are basically the same for French, German, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish, etc. and they all use the long scale... The English speakers are the odd-balls, not the other way round. One would think that the UK wouldn't take ideas from States, but they started using the American scale in the '70s so it's not like people that remember its use died yet...
because of lower gravity you can build space elevators on mars using regular steel
Last time I checked, meteorology was a study of atmosphere, you know, the stuff that's 100km thick and covers gigantic heat sinks in form of continents and oceans, is highly susceptible to amount and type of solar irradiation, force of solar wind, is influenced by presence and type of condensation nuclei, mountain ranges, etc. etc. it isn't a simple cubic container with largely uniform gas composition warmed by a uniform heat source warming it in whole at the same time.
Besides, the "experiment" you linked was testing just thermal properties of air using a single data point, without controlling the environment (placing a thermally susceptible experiment over a CRT screen, please...).
And no, I do not negate the results in the performed experiment, they are in line with widely accepted theories. Thing is, there is a much more potent and present in higher quantities greenhouse gas in the atmosphere: water. Atmosphere is too complex and we can't predict what temperature will be next Friday, let alone in ten years. There are too many unknowns and our computers are too slow to create good-enough models. As long as this doesn't change climate science will be just wild speculation, just like finance -- we are able to predict only general trends, in short time frames, when there are no large disturbances present. Shit hits the fan and the "experts" are either off by hundreds of miles (see recent tornadoes warnings) or sign (Polish GDP growth rate during the world crisis).