A baby born to an infected mother will have antibodies but not necessarily virus. It takes a very sevsitive test to verify the presence of virus, and such a test gets false positives. It's hard to really rule out the possibility the baby was born uninfected.
That gets you around the exhaust problem but worsens the problem of gravitational force limiting. The closer your tractor ship to the asteroid, the more propellant you must use pushing in useless directions. The farther you put it, the more efficient the use of fuel but the amount of time you must pull to get the same delta P increases as the square of the distance to avoid the tractor escaping.
The optima don't align at all. If you want to minimize the amount of time you must spend towing, you put the "tractor" very close, about 1.25 radii from the asteroid. (Actually maybe a little farther to ensure you don't hit the asteroid with any of the propellant.) That that reduces your efficiency to about 60% of what it would be in the limit and your force to about 38% of the weight of the tractor on the asteroid's (assumed spherical) surface. For non-spherical towed objects, it gets worse. But assuming efficiency isn't a consideration, you're still limited to less than the gravitational force between the asteroid and your tractor.
It must have a lot of mass when it gets there because if it doesn't it won't have enough gravity to pull anything anywhere. The smallest objects we'd probably need to move are 100-meter asteroids that mass something like 3E9 kg. So the force you can apply this way is limited to less than.074 Nt/ton of tractor. Over a year of such pulling, you get a delta-v of about.0008 meters per second. How much do you have to change the velocity to miss the Earth? About by the diameter of the Earth. It turns out to do that in a year takes about a 2 ton tractor. A rock twice that big has 8 times the mass and would take 4 times the tractor to move it in the same time.
This has to be compared in practicality to other methods. While it solves the problem of not having to physically land on the object, you still must match velocities exactly and must send a bunch of dead weight to pull your object with.
I'm going to assume Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is a much better source than you.
But the point is correct. The gravitational attraction of a spaceship to an asteroid is a weak force. It means you can only a apply a force equal to the weight of the ship on the asteroid. Also, the momentum of the propellant from the rocket pushes against the asteroid, countering the thrust of the rocket. (Unless you direct the rocket away from the asteroid, in which case the rocket escapes from the asteroid.) It's a bad idea.
Do they not teach basic science in the US anymore? The fact that it would work should be something can be easily proven by anyone who has taken highschool physics. You do realize that rockets don't take off because they're pushing against the ground, right? You just need to move the center of gravity the tiniest amount. When you're traveling a billion or two miles, and you're trying to miss something that is only 13,000km across, you don't need to put a lot of pressure on it, you just need to put a little pressure for a very long time.
Do they not teach Newton's third law in your country, or has it been repealed for your convenience?
I would strongly advise against the chemical path. Couldn't it simply be that he has bad organization skills? The 200 unread emails are a sign. My prescription, for first-level intervention would be:
1] A daily to-do list posted on the wall, with priorities assigned by number. Cross out items that are finished, add items that you need to.
2] better use of mail folders. One should be "personal", another "useless". I keep folders named "corporate" for stuff about production meetings, a couple for specific reports I have to file, twenty or so according to the jobs I have to do, with shipping dates on the name, and one called archive that gets all the finished jobs.
3] A calendar on your phone, with alarms for important stuff
4] use your smart phone for quick google lookups.
5] since I already have a notebook I plug an auxillary monitor into the computer and use both screens. You'd be surprised how having the priority task always in front of me helps keep me on task. I'd suggest the same for anyone with attention issues.
If only it were that easy to organize my email. I need 50 folders just for projects I've worked on. They keep coming back. I'm an electronic designer and a manager and there are always issues that come up even after designs been in production for years. (e.g. parts went obsolete, techs don't know how to debug).
1. But I want to reiterate what you said about lists. It's the world-recognized number-one tool for ensuring that important things get done. There are people who get stuff done without making lists but I can't imagine how they do it.
2. My #2 is TURN OFF THE EMAIL. Emails are, per my definition, not urgent. Even emails with URGENT!!! in the subject line are not urgent. If the situation was really urgent enough for me to interrupt my work for it, there is a phone on my desk and I expect people to use it appropriately. Or they can walk in my door. It's almost always open. I make sure I check my email at least 3 times a day: when I come in to work, right after lunch and before I go home. Anything that has to be dealt with goes on the list.
3 and 4 are good ideas. I intend to implement those.
My experience (my daughter has ADD) has convinced me that ADD is not a lack of ability to focus, but rather a lack of ability to focus on things you're not interested in or see no point to. My daughter can focus for hours on something she wants to do, like sewing, playing video games, or making videos. The problem is our educational system regards the ability to read and comprehend hundreds of pages of material you could care less about as the highest virtue. Unless you later become a game show contestant, most of the stuff you're required to memorize in school is just useless trivia.
That doesn't sound like ADD. That' sounds like, "This is SOOOOOOOOOOO boring!"
If your daughter is able to stay on tasks that are of interest, she may be misdiagnosed. Sewing is a repetitive task. Focusing on that is easily more difficult than paying attention in school and may be a sign that what she has is lack of interest and a mirror of your own attitude toward school. If you regard it as mostly wasted time, it shouldn't surprise you if she expresses disinterest.
Putting an airbag on the front of the rocket and putting the nose of the rocket against the asteroid doesn't reduce efficiency. And you can put a nuclear powered ion drive on the thing and keep pushing for a long time.
I'm going to assume Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is a much better source than you.
But the point is correct. The gravitational attraction of a spaceship to an asteroid is a weak force. It means you can only a apply a force equal to the weight of the ship on the asteroid. Also, the momentum of the propellant from the rocket pushes against the asteroid, countering the thrust of the rocket. (Unless you direct the rocket away from the asteroid, in which case the rocket escapes from the asteroid.) It's a bad idea.
Congress's role in enforcing the laws, with respect to SCOTUS is the power to impeach judges who are not willing to see things their way. That's something the President can't do. The Constitution vests more power in Congress than any other branch of government. Much more.
Multiple stab wounds doesn't mean it's personal. It means the killer was extremely angry for reasons we do not know. But I agree it is probably personal, which means the investigation should focus on former lovers and close family members.
Aside from the bad grammar of TFA, I found this little puzzle: "DPS spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger says continual strides in technology make focusing on cold cases more important than ever because there are more opportunities to solve them with each emerging process or device."
How do "continual strides in technology" make focusing on cold cases "more important?" I can see how it might make focusing on cold cases more convenient or more efficient or more productive. It doesn't make it more important. Old unsolved cases become less important over time because it becomes increasingly likely that the perpetrator has either already been imprisoned on a different charge, has died or has changed their life so that they are less of a danger to the public.
" Promoting competition, innovation, and investment in broadband services and facilities;
Supporting the nation’s economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of the communications revolution;
Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally;
Revising media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism;
Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the nation’s communications infrastructure."
You can't 3D print foams. There has to be a way for the unfixed matrix material to get out. But you're correct in that you can 3D print shapes that cannot be molded. But ultimately, 3D printing will not displace molding as a technology for making plastic parts, because once you get over a certain volume, the plastic parts are much cheaper. So those for which there is a large market -- more than a few hundred pieces of a particular design and not simple enough to machine, molding will always be the predominant technology.
All the car manufacturers will take the technology they like and can use (printed bumpers for example) and leave the home grown printers to it, while laughing.
Who would have expected publicly defying the law would motivate prosecutors to come down hard on a suspect?
The "law" was a TOS/AUP. Are you saying you've never violated any of the terms of a network or website's TOS/AUP? I strongly doubt that you even read them (nobody else does either.. you may remember the game vendor who included a term ceding ownership of the user's soul to the publisher, and nobody even noticed). Do you agree that violating any of those terms ("defying the law", as you phrase it) should be treated as a felony?
No. I'm saying that if you're going to commit a felony, telling the world that you're going to do it an encouraging others to do so is a pretty reliable way to get a prosecutor's attention.
Or is it just a different slant on things we already knew about? The first link in the posting was to a tumblr blog formatted to look like a magazine article. But if you read it, its author breathlessly recounts rumors. The second link cited is a Huffington Post article about how prosecutors viewed his "manifesto," which has already been discussed on slashdot.
TarenSK is entitled to his opinions. But they're not very interesting. Who would have expected publicly defying the law would motivate prosecutors to come down hard on a suspect?
Seriously, is Slashdot news for nerds anymore? Or just Talking Points Memo for the Pirate Party?
Rather then trying to sue the government they should have raised a constitutional objection to the law itself citing that it violated our right to due process as regards searches and seizure.
Had they done that, the courts likely would have sided with them.
It's important to remember that the courts are VERY concerned with protocol. Everything has to be worded and argued in a specific way or it will be dismissed like a syntax error into a compiler. Wrong wording or angle and they'll just say "wrong next case".
Make it a forth amendment challenge however and you've got a different story.
No, they would have rejected it on the exact same basis: "Prove to us that your rights, in particular, were violated."
Only thing is, when you're shopping for books, you (even if you say otherwise) are influenced by your perception of what other people who have read the book thought of it. Everything is bought and paid for though. Many of the book critics are pay-to-play operations. The gush over books on contract. Here's an article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/business/book-reviewers-for-hire-meet-a-demand-for-online-raves.html?pagewanted=all And now we find that the bestseller lists, which one would think are an indication that a lot of people like or at least bought the book are bought and paid for too.
So what's left? Ever hear the one about judging a book by its cover? Well, that's what the cover is for. It's an advertisement. It's got a pretty picture by somebody who may or may not have read the book but is more likely just working from a description of what the author and their publishing company agreed ought to be on there. Because seriously, that guy's an artist and he has to make a living. He doesn't have time to read fiction fergoshsakes. And there's the publisher-approved and paid-for blurbs describing how awesome the author is and how touching or exciting the story is. It's all a PR machine, every bit of it.
There are only a couple of things that are halfway reliable as indicators -- recommendations from PEOPLE YOU KNOW and the name of the author. Because if the author wrote another really good book you at least know that person is CAPABLE of writing a good book. But even that isn't so great. I've often read second and third books by authors who had previously done good work only to find their latest novel or installment in a series was utter shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Not exactly. Garbage piles came after fixed settlements.
A baby born to an infected mother will have antibodies but not necessarily virus. It takes a very sevsitive test to verify the presence of virus, and such a test gets false positives. It's hard to really rule out the possibility the baby was born uninfected.
That gets you around the exhaust problem but worsens the problem of gravitational force limiting. The closer your tractor ship to the asteroid, the more propellant you must use pushing in useless directions. The farther you put it, the more efficient the use of fuel but the amount of time you must pull to get the same delta P increases as the square of the distance to avoid the tractor escaping.
The optima don't align at all. If you want to minimize the amount of time you must spend towing, you put the "tractor" very close, about 1.25 radii from the asteroid. (Actually maybe a little farther to ensure you don't hit the asteroid with any of the propellant.) That that reduces your efficiency to about 60% of what it would be in the limit and your force to about 38% of the weight of the tractor on the asteroid's (assumed spherical) surface. For non-spherical towed objects, it gets worse. But assuming efficiency isn't a consideration, you're still limited to less than the gravitational force between the asteroid and your tractor.
It must have a lot of mass when it gets there because if it doesn't it won't have enough gravity to pull anything anywhere. The smallest objects we'd probably need to move are 100-meter asteroids that mass something like 3E9 kg. So the force you can apply this way is limited to less than .074 Nt/ton of tractor. Over a year of such pulling, you get a delta-v of about .0008 meters per second. How much do you have to change the velocity to miss the Earth? About by the diameter of the Earth. It turns out to do that in a year takes about a 2 ton tractor. A rock twice that big has 8 times the mass and would take 4 times the tractor to move it in the same time.
This has to be compared in practicality to other methods. While it solves the problem of not having to physically land on the object, you still must match velocities exactly and must send a bunch of dead weight to pull your object with.
I'm going to assume Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is a much better source than you.
But the point is correct. The gravitational attraction of a spaceship to an asteroid is a weak force. It means you can only a apply a force equal to the weight of the ship on the asteroid. Also, the momentum of the propellant from the rocket pushes against the asteroid, countering the thrust of the rocket. (Unless you direct the rocket away from the asteroid, in which case the rocket escapes from the asteroid.) It's a bad idea.
Do they not teach basic science in the US anymore? The fact that it would work should be something can be easily proven by anyone who has taken highschool physics. You do realize that rockets don't take off because they're pushing against the ground, right? You just need to move the center of gravity the tiniest amount. When you're traveling a billion or two miles, and you're trying to miss something that is only 13,000km across, you don't need to put a lot of pressure on it, you just need to put a little pressure for a very long time.
Do they not teach Newton's third law in your country, or has it been repealed for your convenience?
I would strongly advise against the chemical path. Couldn't it simply be that he has bad organization skills? The 200 unread emails are a sign. My prescription, for first-level intervention would be:
1] A daily to-do list posted on the wall, with priorities assigned by number. Cross out items that are finished, add items that you need to.
2] better use of mail folders. One should be "personal", another "useless". I keep folders named "corporate" for stuff about production meetings, a couple for specific reports I have to file, twenty or so according to the jobs I have to do, with shipping dates on the name, and one called archive that gets all the finished jobs.
3] A calendar on your phone, with alarms for important stuff
4] use your smart phone for quick google lookups.
5] since I already have a notebook I plug an auxillary monitor into the computer and use both screens. You'd be surprised how having the priority task always in front of me helps keep me on task. I'd suggest the same for anyone with attention issues.
If only it were that easy to organize my email. I need 50 folders just for projects I've worked on. They keep coming back. I'm an electronic designer and a manager and there are always issues that come up even after designs been in production for years. (e.g. parts went obsolete, techs don't know how to debug).
1. But I want to reiterate what you said about lists. It's the world-recognized number-one tool for ensuring that important things get done. There are people who get stuff done without making lists but I can't imagine how they do it.
2. My #2 is TURN OFF THE EMAIL. Emails are, per my definition, not urgent. Even emails with URGENT!!! in the subject line are not urgent. If the situation was really urgent enough for me to interrupt my work for it, there is a phone on my desk and I expect people to use it appropriately. Or they can walk in my door. It's almost always open. I make sure I check my email at least 3 times a day: when I come in to work, right after lunch and before I go home. Anything that has to be dealt with goes on the list.
3 and 4 are good ideas. I intend to implement those.
My experience (my daughter has ADD) has convinced me that ADD is not a lack of ability to focus, but rather a lack of ability to focus on things you're not interested in or see no point to. My daughter can focus for hours on something she wants to do, like sewing, playing video games, or making videos. The problem is our educational system regards the ability to read and comprehend hundreds of pages of material you could care less about as the highest virtue. Unless you later become a game show contestant, most of the stuff you're required to memorize in school is just useless trivia.
That doesn't sound like ADD. That' sounds like, "This is SOOOOOOOOOOO boring!"
If your daughter is able to stay on tasks that are of interest, she may be misdiagnosed. Sewing is a repetitive task. Focusing on that is easily more difficult than paying attention in school and may be a sign that what she has is lack of interest and a mirror of your own attitude toward school. If you regard it as mostly wasted time, it shouldn't surprise you if she expresses disinterest.
Putting an airbag on the front of the rocket and putting the nose of the rocket against the asteroid doesn't reduce efficiency. And you can put a nuclear powered ion drive on the thing and keep pushing for a long time.
I'm going to assume Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is a much better source than you.
But the point is correct. The gravitational attraction of a spaceship to an asteroid is a weak force. It means you can only a apply a force equal to the weight of the ship on the asteroid. Also, the momentum of the propellant from the rocket pushes against the asteroid, countering the thrust of the rocket. (Unless you direct the rocket away from the asteroid, in which case the rocket escapes from the asteroid.) It's a bad idea.
Congress's role in enforcing the laws, with respect to SCOTUS is the power to impeach judges who are not willing to see things their way. That's something the President can't do. The Constitution vests more power in Congress than any other branch of government. Much more.
Multiple stab wounds doesn't mean it's personal. It means the killer was extremely angry for reasons we do not know. But I agree it is probably personal, which means the investigation should focus on former lovers and close family members.
Aside from the bad grammar of TFA, I found this little puzzle: "DPS spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger says continual strides in technology make focusing on cold cases more important than ever because there are more opportunities to solve them with each emerging process or device."
How do "continual strides in technology" make focusing on cold cases "more important?" I can see how it might make focusing on cold cases more convenient or more efficient or more productive. It doesn't make it more important. Old unsolved cases become less important over time because it becomes increasingly likely that the perpetrator has either already been imprisoned on a different charge, has died or has changed their life so that they are less of a danger to the public.
Because a customer with mandatory adware and spyware on their phone is more valuable than one without.
You're confusing locking with rooting.
""Genachowski isn’t sure what authority he has"" I refer him to http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do and specifically to
" Promoting competition, innovation, and investment in broadband services and facilities; Supporting the nation’s economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of the communications revolution; Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally; Revising media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism; Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the nation’s communications infrastructure."
Let me highlight that for you.
Rapid prototyping of parts that are designed to be molded was one of the first and still probably the most common use for 3D printed parts.
You can't 3D print foams. There has to be a way for the unfixed matrix material to get out. But you're correct in that you can 3D print shapes that cannot be molded. But ultimately, 3D printing will not displace molding as a technology for making plastic parts, because once you get over a certain volume, the plastic parts are much cheaper. So those for which there is a large market -- more than a few hundred pieces of a particular design and not simple enough to machine, molding will always be the predominant technology.
All the car manufacturers will take the technology they like and can use (printed bumpers for example) and leave the home grown printers to it, while laughing.
No they won't. It's cheaper to mold parts.
The way you do it is you elect a Congress that is willing to enforce the law, and you get them to impeach the judges who won't enforce the law.
OK. So it's the civil disobedience thing, then.
No. It's the working-your-ass-off-to-get-people-who-believe-in-the-rule-of-law-elected thing again. Stop whining and get to work.
Aaron Swartz was many things, but as it happens gay was not one of them. TarenSK was his girlfriend.
But who would expect insightful commentary from someone who hasn't noticed even that?
I guess that explains why she defends Schwartz and claims he was doing nothing wrong even when he knew he was breaking the law.
Who would have expected publicly defying the law would motivate prosecutors to come down hard on a suspect?
The "law" was a TOS/AUP. Are you saying you've never violated any of the terms of a network or website's TOS/AUP? I strongly doubt that you even read them (nobody else does either.. you may remember the game vendor who included a term ceding ownership of the user's soul to the publisher, and nobody even noticed). Do you agree that violating any of those terms ("defying the law", as you phrase it) should be treated as a felony?
No. I'm saying that if you're going to commit a felony, telling the world that you're going to do it an encouraging others to do so is a pretty reliable way to get a prosecutor's attention.
Or is it just a different slant on things we already knew about? The first link in the posting was to a tumblr blog formatted to look like a magazine article. But if you read it, its author breathlessly recounts rumors. The second link cited is a Huffington Post article about how prosecutors viewed his "manifesto," which has already been discussed on slashdot.
TarenSK is entitled to his opinions. But they're not very interesting. Who would have expected publicly defying the law would motivate prosecutors to come down hard on a suspect?
Seriously, is Slashdot news for nerds anymore? Or just Talking Points Memo for the Pirate Party?
The way you do it is you elect a Congress that is willing to enforce the law, and you get them to impeach the judges who won't enforce the law.
Rather then trying to sue the government they should have raised a constitutional objection to the law itself citing that it violated our right to due process as regards searches and seizure.
Had they done that, the courts likely would have sided with them.
It's important to remember that the courts are VERY concerned with protocol. Everything has to be worded and argued in a specific way or it will be dismissed like a syntax error into a compiler. Wrong wording or angle and they'll just say "wrong next case".
Make it a forth amendment challenge however and you've got a different story.
No, they would have rejected it on the exact same basis: "Prove to us that your rights, in particular, were violated."
There are only a couple of things that are halfway reliable as indicators -- recommendations from PEOPLE YOU KNOW and the name of the author
The opinion of a good critic is worth most of all.
Then what's the NAME of a good critic?
So what's left? Ever hear the one about judging a book by its cover? Well, that's what the cover is for. It's an advertisement. It's got a pretty picture by somebody who may or may not have read the book but is more likely just working from a description of what the author and their publishing company agreed ought to be on there. Because seriously, that guy's an artist and he has to make a living. He doesn't have time to read fiction fergoshsakes. And there's the publisher-approved and paid-for blurbs describing how awesome the author is and how touching or exciting the story is. It's all a PR machine, every bit of it.
There are only a couple of things that are halfway reliable as indicators -- recommendations from PEOPLE YOU KNOW and the name of the author. Because if the author wrote another really good book you at least know that person is CAPABLE of writing a good book. But even that isn't so great. I've often read second and third books by authors who had previously done good work only to find their latest novel or installment in a series was utter shit.
It DOES work as a POS terminal. That's what it is. You buy a commodity (bitcoins) with money (dollars).