"facial hair and the success of computer languages"
I presume the article that is not loading is about the corresponding relationship of programmer's facial hair and the language they work in - versus computer languages themselves actually having facial hair.
C++ (that must be nasty hair growing out of an ear. I had a Chemistry professor with that problem in college)
Subsidies usually allow a farms to grow food while the costs are down. When grain prices would not be able to keep the farm profitable, thus ensuring that all your farms do not move out of your country leaving you with no local food production.
It usually adds to the amount of grain available on the market. It can lower grain prices.
"How does tying the cost of grain to the cost of fuel (which is skyrocketing) NOT affect those who are exceptionally sensitive to price fluctuations"
Because, the main ingredient in the cost of grain, is not the cost of grain but the cost of fuel to plant, harvest and transport said grain. Therefore, providing affordable alternative fuel would reduce the price/gallon of fuel necessary for farm machinery and transportation. Thus significantly reducing the price of grain.
I think it'd have made more sense to collaborate on the GPS system. But maybe the U.S. gov was not to keen on such policies. I do not know.
That said, I am very tongue-in-cheek on this because we've been getting all this crap about corn used for ethanol. And that supposedly causing the price of grains to skyrocket.
What really is causing grain to skyrocket is that a decade ago we were paying about a $1/gallon in gas. Now, we're paying up to $4/gallon. Most of the cost in grain food production is fuel for farm machinery and transport.
IF (E.U send food to Africa || E.U. !send food to Africa){
E.U. = "Good"; }
America is damned if we do, damned if we don't in the eyes of Europe. But then again, we have little respect for peoples who wear Speedo's at the beach.
People keep on criticizing the U.S. ethanol program as the reason for people to be starving in Africa. (Which is far from the truth. With much of the famines in regions like Africa being due to corruption, mismanagement and violent warlords.)
But now we know the real culprit for their starvation. Our good friends in Europe decided rather than spending millions on growing food and encouraging the farm industry so as to feed the world's poor.
They took those monies and instead blew it on a series of satellites that are essentially redundant to the one's America already launched into space. By the time E.U. launches enough satellites to have a full fledge system it will have expended a global fortune and led to the deaths of thousands and thousands in Africa who could have benefited from the food grown via the farm subsidies.:P
"London MPs have expressed doubt as to whether the UK will receive value for the money it will pay, but have acknowledged that the British government doesn't actually have any choice about Galileo under EU funding rules."
It works like this for the airline industry, or it did until 9-11 changed the paradigm:
If terrorism => mechanical failure If mechanical failure => pilot error
***
That said my reason's for my beliefs in regard of TWA Fligh 800.
> A statement by officials if it was a missile they'd likely find the yellowish residue from solid fuel propellants. Then later it was discovered. Then we were given another explanation.
> People who saw the incident would not have been able to see it from where they were standing according to the FAA's explanation.
> Talked with enough former air force who's experience with jet fuel led them to nigh laugh at the explanation. Like the ones who put fires out with jet fuel as jokes.
> Third hand knowledge. My aunt had a friend who was a state trooper on Long Island. He was a Vietnam vet, and stated it her that it was a missile. The FAA tried to say people saw fuel burning that had leaked out burning it's way upward. And that the jet surged upward. To make it look that way. And yet pretty much all the people who witnessed the incident said...no, that was not what happened.
Frankly, it was probably the right thing to do at the time. As it was a freak incident. They were worried about what effect it might have on the airline industry.
***
There is a big difference between the Flight 800 incident versus those claiming that the U.S. government implemented 9-11, etc.
"In a lot of ways, ID uses the same "logic" as any classic conspiracy theory: searching the "accepted truth" for any (apparently) unexplained gaps and shrieking Ah-HA! This disproves it all! "
Which is also foolish. I'd just like to have open discussion. There were scientists who once believed man could not travel faster than 60mph.
But a closed door to discussion breeds a dangerous ground. It is better to let one speak his folly and be judged than to demand silence and censorship.
There was a proposition to modify the B-52's with reverse-stealth technology.
A similar idea had been proposed for the B-52's a few years ago. Since you can't really make such a craft stealth, how do you keep them viable.
Well B-52s are mainly used in one of two capacities. Single bomber support role, carpet bombing (albeit with more intelligent bombs these days) in prep for a land transaction. Or the more purposeful original intention of a strategic bomber. In which case a whole flight of bombers would be sent out to level much foe.
But with radar and missiles, how can such aircraft get to their targets.
I used to work on a 90ft schooner (sailboat for the landlubbers). Anyways, we had a radar reflector that would make us show up much larger on radar.
The idea was to go the opposite route. Instead of stealth, have all the B-52's light up those radars as bright as they can. So instead of seeing the large B-52 on the radar you'd see something akin to the size of the ships in Independence Day. Huge giant radar blob. In fact dozens of giant radar blobs.
So yes, you'd know something was coming. The radar makes that clear. But trying to pin point it's exact position and mobilize fighters becomes more challenging because well, it's showing up in almost a mile of air space or more. I don't think the Air Force ever went thru with the expense. But one never knows...it might have been done and listed as $200 toilet seats.;-)
"In physics, ram pressure is a pressure exerted on a body which is moving through a fluid medium. It causes a strong drag force to be exerted on the body."
-->
"n fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called resistance) is the force that resists the movement of a solid object through a fluid (a liquid or gas). Drag is made up of friction forces"
So it looks to me to be friction, just the creation of a pressure buffer taking the direction friction.
How does the radar signature of the F-22 compare to the F-117.
Another big issue, might have been China's development of tying the RADAR units together and analyzing the data so that they could track the F-117A. Defeating it's stealth capabilities.
Such a blow pretty much made the craft useless strategically and only of good in small tactical situations against poorly equipped foes.
The F-22 is the real "stealth fighter". The F-117A was the stealth attack craft/tactical bomber.
Fighters usually aren't all that super secret. But reconnaissance, and strategic assault vehicles. Now those are secret.
The F-117A's mission is likely to be super-seded by unmanned stealth drones.
The SR-71 was retired a while back. The F-117A was NOT a replacement for the SR-71. Rather, both operated concurrently for some time.
The mostly likely replacement for the Blackbird is the Aurora project. Sometimes caught by seismologists and observers. Rumored to use a a pulsating scramjet and being the mach 5-8 range.
Then there is the B2 (flying wing) bomber and the B1-B The B1-B being famous for numerous crashes. Though very few in later years. What was the change? The government had been only doing 85% of the maintenance recommended for the bombers by it's manufacturers. They began doing the full maintenance recommended maintenance, fluid changes, etc. Things ceased failing...go figure.
I used to play that on my Commodore 128 along with Red Storm Rising. (Ironically the graphics were better for my Commodore 128 than on my family's 386DX30mhz.)
Anyways, I found this weird bug that if I had my pitch at just the right degree and was flying at the max ceiling. I could fly across the entire mediteranean on zero fuel. Of course, this meant only one chance to land the sucker...
But on more than one occasion I took out my target, was low on fuel...jetted up to 50,000ft and pointed my noise in just the right angle and let it run out of fuel.
"This isn't a problem. Einstein, for example, was a fierce opponent of quantum mechanics -- the 'spooky action at a distance' doesn't fit with c as a speed limit."
Very true...
And recently, we've begun to discover much regarding our concept of c and light, etc. Ironically, I've been open to this for nearly 20 yrs. Thanks to a preacher who also happened to be quite fond of computers and physics introducing me to some early studies of scientists questioning these precepts.
However, discussion with others (ie: science professors) on this matter was dismissive. Now, it's becoming common discussion.
"But the fact is that one of the primary goals of just about every scientist is to challenge or overturn the conventional wisdom."
Nothing wrong with that...
"And to so in a way that is observable and disprovable."
I'd say a lot of it is not observable or disprovable, perhaps insightful. Theories such as infinitely expanding and collapsing universe, universes. And various other ideas often taught have serious lacks on disprovability. But there is no issue in teaching or discussing these in class.
"A scientist who who has never been wrong, or who doesn't appreciate being proven wrong, is a poor scientist indeed."
Well, a scientist who has never been wrong...either isn't a scientist or is a darn good one. That said, the general point of your statement I quite agree with.
"This creationist doctrine, whatever term proponents choose to call it, is fundamentally non-scientific -- even anti-science."
This is where I disagree. First off, I think that hypothesis and tests can be cited for intelligent design. I think statements to the nature of discovery of design patterns across species and various levels is just one good prediction for testing. No worse than Darwin's proposition that transitional forms should exist.
"If a theory can't produce hypotheses, can't be tested, can't be disproven, and can't make predictions, then it's not a theory and certainly not science."
Many things that fall in this category are taught in the science classrooms of public school....with no qualms.
"Having a strong opinion is not bias, if it is a sound conclusion of the evidence. Bias is starting with the conclusion and selectively gathering the evidence to support it."
It is also the filtering of evidence and interpretation of evidence so as to favor one's viewpoint. Quite common in our science today.
"You exhibit a startling lack of education in biological science. There are many possible environments and different resources that cannot all be exploited by one species."
Nah....we just haven't reached there yet. Mankind is quickly surpassing many species in this regard to the exclusion of those species.
"It is not surprising that descendants will inherit those traits from their parents that enabled them to successfully procreate, or at least didn't *keep* them from procreating."
"Where in their schooling do they pick up this fear?" Probably in all those schools that currently don't allow discussion on anything that's disagreed with. (This doesn't just go for evolution. Try being a liberal with a conservative professor, or try being a conservative in a class with a liberal professor.) Often the case any discussion is far less about discussion and more so about intimidation.
"they seem to bear the cross of this secret fear cheerfully well."
It's easy to wear red in a room where everyone wears red. But my comment toward the fear, was not so much of fear to speak out. But internal fears...
Slashdot Mirror
/=
*thumb's up*
"facial hair and the success of computer languages"
I presume the article that is not loading is about the corresponding relationship of programmer's facial hair and the language they work in - versus computer languages themselves actually having facial hair.
C++ (that must be nasty hair growing out of an ear. I had a Chemistry professor with that problem in college)
That the #1 issue causing starvation is terror. Warlords and corruption in Africa prevents aid from reaching the needy and prevents economic growth.
Subsidies usually allow a farms to grow food while the costs are down. When grain prices would not be able to keep the farm profitable, thus ensuring that all your farms do not move out of your country leaving you with no local food production.
It usually adds to the amount of grain available on the market. It can lower grain prices.
"How does tying the cost of grain to the cost of fuel (which is skyrocketing) NOT affect those who are exceptionally sensitive to price fluctuations"
Because, the main ingredient in the cost of grain, is not the cost of grain but the cost of fuel to plant, harvest and transport said grain. Therefore, providing affordable alternative fuel would reduce the price/gallon of fuel necessary for farm machinery and transportation. Thus significantly reducing the price of grain.
I think it'd have made more sense to collaborate on the GPS system. But maybe the U.S. gov was not to keen on such policies. I do not know.
That said, I am very tongue-in-cheek on this because we've been getting all this crap about corn used for ethanol. And that supposedly causing the price of grains to skyrocket.
What really is causing grain to skyrocket is that a decade ago we were paying about a $1/gallon in gas. Now, we're paying up to $4/gallon. Most of the cost in grain food production is fuel for farm machinery and transport.
Hence, increase in prices.
IF (U.S.A. sends food to Africa){
AfricanFarmers = "Unemployed";
U.S.A. = "Evil";
LocalCorruptionFactor = 0.986
QuantityArrived = QuantitySent - (QuantitySent*LocalCorruptionFactor)
}
ELSE (U.S.A. !send food to Africa){
U.S.A. = "Evil";
}
IF (E.U send food to Africa || E.U. !send food to Africa){
E.U. = "Good";
}
America is damned if we do, damned if we don't in the eyes of Europe. But then again, we have little respect for peoples who wear Speedo's at the beach.
-1 Troll
Worth every bit of it too. It's just nice to be able to hurl some crap toward my European friends now and then. Knock them off their high horse.
(Of course, us American will continue riding our pigs. So don't get me wrong. I fully admit and acknowledge that we are flawed.)
People keep on criticizing the U.S. ethanol program as the reason for people to be starving in Africa. (Which is far from the truth. With much of the famines in regions like Africa being due to corruption, mismanagement and violent warlords.)
:P
But now we know the real culprit for their starvation. Our good friends in Europe decided rather than spending millions on growing food and encouraging the farm industry so as to feed the world's poor.
They took those monies and instead blew it on a series of satellites that are essentially redundant to the one's America already launched into space. By the time E.U. launches enough satellites to have a full fledge system it will have expended a global fortune and led to the deaths of thousands and thousands in Africa who could have benefited from the food grown via the farm subsidies.
"London MPs have expressed doubt as to whether the UK will receive value for the money it will pay, but have acknowledged that the British government doesn't actually have any choice about Galileo under EU funding rules."
"Sucks to You Kay!!! "
"U.K. = E.U. b*tch"
"U.K. => E.U. => F.U."
Install Girlfriend 1.0 or higher and get Nerd a life. See world from different point-of-view.
Now install "Girlfriend Dump" hack. So Nerd has lots of free time to waste on Xbox360 and hacking Linux.
much obliged...
:)
being interested in so many topics, it gets hard to keep track of all the three letter acronyms.
It works like this for the airline industry, or it did until 9-11 changed the paradigm:
If terrorism => mechanical failure
If mechanical failure => pilot error
***
That said my reason's for my beliefs in regard of TWA Fligh 800.
> A statement by officials if it was a missile they'd likely find the yellowish residue from solid fuel propellants. Then later it was discovered. Then we were given another explanation.
> People who saw the incident would not have been able to see it from where they were standing according to the FAA's explanation.
> Talked with enough former air force who's experience with jet fuel led them to nigh laugh at the explanation. Like the ones who put fires out with jet fuel as jokes.
> Third hand knowledge. My aunt had a friend who was a state trooper on Long Island. He was a Vietnam vet, and stated it her that it was a missile. The FAA tried to say people saw fuel burning that had leaked out burning it's way upward. And that the jet surged upward. To make it look that way. And yet pretty much all the people who witnessed the incident said...no, that was not what happened.
Frankly, it was probably the right thing to do at the time. As it was a freak incident. They were worried about what effect it might have on the airline industry.
***
There is a big difference between the Flight 800 incident versus those claiming that the U.S. government implemented 9-11, etc.
"The difference is that the scientists agree to play by certain rules that try to filter out the crap."
Agreed...but I don't recall censorship and refusal to allow a topic to be addressed as one of those.
"In a lot of ways, ID uses the same "logic" as any classic conspiracy theory: searching the "accepted truth" for any (apparently) unexplained gaps and shrieking Ah-HA! This disproves it all! "
Which is also foolish. I'd just like to have open discussion. There were scientists who once believed man could not travel faster than 60mph.
But a closed door to discussion breeds a dangerous ground. It is better to let one speak his folly and be judged than to demand silence and censorship.
An Inconvenient Truth... ;-)
acm ???
There was a proposition to modify the B-52's with reverse-stealth technology.
;-)
A similar idea had been proposed for the B-52's a few years ago. Since you can't really make such a craft stealth, how do you keep them viable.
Well B-52s are mainly used in one of two capacities. Single bomber support role, carpet bombing (albeit with more intelligent bombs these days) in prep for a land transaction. Or the more purposeful original intention of a strategic bomber. In which case a whole flight of bombers would be sent out to level much foe.
But with radar and missiles, how can such aircraft get to their targets.
I used to work on a 90ft schooner (sailboat for the landlubbers). Anyways, we had a radar reflector that would make us show up much larger on radar.
The idea was to go the opposite route. Instead of stealth, have all the B-52's light up those radars as bright as they can. So instead of seeing the large B-52 on the radar you'd see something akin to the size of the ships in Independence Day. Huge giant radar blob. In fact dozens of giant radar blobs.
So yes, you'd know something was coming. The radar makes that clear. But trying to pin point it's exact position and mobilize fighters becomes more challenging because well, it's showing up in almost a mile of air space or more. I don't think the Air Force ever went thru with the expense. But one never knows...it might have been done and listed as $200 toilet seats.
"Friction"
-->
"In physics, ram pressure is a pressure exerted on a body which is moving through a fluid medium. It causes a strong drag force to be exerted on the body."
-->
"n fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called resistance) is the force that resists the movement of a solid object through a fluid (a liquid or gas). Drag is made up of friction forces"
So it looks to me to be friction, just the creation of a pressure buffer taking the direction friction.
That's my big question.
How does the radar signature of the F-22 compare to the F-117.
Another big issue, might have been China's development of tying the RADAR units together and analyzing the data so that they could track the F-117A. Defeating it's stealth capabilities.
Such a blow pretty much made the craft useless strategically and only of good in small tactical situations against poorly equipped foes.
Nah....
The F-22 is the real "stealth fighter". The F-117A was the stealth attack craft/tactical bomber.
Fighters usually aren't all that super secret. But reconnaissance, and strategic assault vehicles. Now those are secret.
The F-117A's mission is likely to be super-seded by unmanned stealth drones.
The SR-71 was retired a while back. The F-117A was NOT a replacement for the SR-71. Rather, both operated concurrently for some time.
The mostly likely replacement for the Blackbird is the Aurora project. Sometimes caught by seismologists and observers. Rumored to use a a pulsating scramjet and being the mach 5-8 range.
Then there is the B2 (flying wing) bomber and the B1-B The B1-B being famous for numerous crashes. Though very few in later years. What was the change? The government had been only doing 85% of the maintenance recommended for the bombers by it's manufacturers. They began doing the full maintenance recommended maintenance, fluid changes, etc. Things ceased failing...go figure.
I used to play that on my Commodore 128 along with Red Storm Rising. (Ironically the graphics were better for my Commodore 128 than on my family's 386DX30mhz.)
Anyways, I found this weird bug that if I had my pitch at just the right degree and was flying at the max ceiling. I could fly across the entire mediteranean on zero fuel. Of course, this meant only one chance to land the sucker...
But on more than one occasion I took out my target, was low on fuel...jetted up to 50,000ft and pointed my noise in just the right angle and let it run out of fuel.
Anyone else ever do this?
Because jet fuel does not combust as easily as the government cover-up of the shooting of Flight 800 would like you to believe. ;-)
"This isn't a problem. Einstein, for example, was a fierce opponent of quantum mechanics -- the 'spooky action at a distance' doesn't fit with c as a speed limit."
Very true...
And recently, we've begun to discover much regarding our concept of c and light, etc. Ironically, I've been open to this for nearly 20 yrs. Thanks to a preacher who also happened to be quite fond of computers and physics introducing me to some early studies of scientists questioning these precepts.
However, discussion with others (ie: science professors) on this matter was dismissive. Now, it's becoming common discussion.
"But the fact is that one of the primary goals of just about every scientist is to challenge or overturn the conventional wisdom."
Nothing wrong with that...
"And to so in a way that is observable and disprovable."
I'd say a lot of it is not observable or disprovable, perhaps insightful. Theories such as infinitely expanding and collapsing universe, universes. And various other ideas often taught have serious lacks on disprovability. But there is no issue in teaching or discussing these in class.
"A scientist who who has never been wrong, or who doesn't appreciate being proven wrong, is a poor scientist indeed."
Well, a scientist who has never been wrong...either isn't a scientist or is a darn good one. That said, the general point of your statement I quite agree with.
"This creationist doctrine, whatever term proponents choose to call it, is fundamentally non-scientific -- even anti-science."
This is where I disagree. First off, I think that hypothesis and tests can be cited for intelligent design. I think statements to the nature of discovery of design patterns across species and various levels is just one good prediction for testing. No worse than Darwin's proposition that transitional forms should exist.
"If a theory can't produce hypotheses, can't be tested, can't be disproven, and can't make predictions, then it's not a theory and certainly not science."
Many things that fall in this category are taught in the science classrooms of public school....with no qualms.
"Having a strong opinion is not bias, if it is a sound conclusion of the evidence. Bias is starting with the conclusion and selectively gathering the evidence to support it."
It is also the filtering of evidence and interpretation of evidence so as to favor one's viewpoint. Quite common in our science today.
"You exhibit a startling lack of education in biological science. There are many possible environments and different resources that cannot all be exploited by one species."
Nah....we just haven't reached there yet. Mankind is quickly surpassing many species in this regard to the exclusion of those species.
"It is not surprising that descendants will inherit those traits from their parents that enabled them to successfully procreate, or at least didn't *keep* them from procreating."
"Where in their schooling do they pick up this fear?"
Probably in all those schools that currently don't allow discussion on anything that's disagreed with. (This doesn't just go for evolution. Try being a liberal with a conservative professor, or try being a conservative in a class with a liberal professor.) Often the case any discussion is far less about discussion and more so about intimidation.
"they seem to bear the cross of this secret fear cheerfully well."
It's easy to wear red in a room where everyone wears red. But my comment toward the fear, was not so much of fear to speak out. But internal fears...