"The 150-foot-wide (45 meters) asteroid 2012 DA14 — which will zoom within 17,200 miles (27,000 kilometers) of Earth on Friday, marking the closest approach by such a large space rock that astronomers have ever known about in advance — may harbor $65 billion of recoverable water and $130 billion in metals, say officials with celestial mining firm Deep Space Industries."
Yeah, that's petty expensive water and any value it may be said to have relies on there being a market in space. There is not.
Let's say it's essentially solid ice. That would be about 15000 cubic meters of ice, so they're pricing it at at least 4.3 million dollars per cubic meter, or 4.3 dollars per liter. So yeah, pricey water under the best assumption. More likely it's mostly rock like other near-earth objects.
Now let's say it's mostly rock. It would have to be some pretty damn special rock to be worth $8.6 million per cubic meter.
These numbers were simply made up by people who are interested in doing it for the sake of doing it as long as somebody else pays for it.
Not to mention you miss them if they don't make a call. Not to mention you count them if they are tourists visiting for a weekend. This method would massively overestimate the population in tourist areas and business disctricts where nobody lives but lots of people work. Census counts where people reside.
And the article says the estimate got 30% of the population and they had to make a huge correction (multiplying by about 3.3!) to get close to France's actual population.
agreed. According to the article, "Records in France came from 17 million users, about 30% of the population, and contained only the day of the call and the phone tower locations, due to differences in the carrier’s policy."
They had to use an empirical model to get estimates that were kind of close to the actual population density.
Yeah, I bet all those high-resolution display panels will be lighter than windows, free to operate and won't require a massive computer system to drive them.
It depends on the animal. The closer the animal is to the target, the more likely results are relevant. Mice are a poor choice if you're looking for something to be safe and effective in humans because they're not even primates. But heck, at least they're placentals.
But you're right. Many drugs that worked in mice don't work in humans, or are toxic or have unacceptable side effects in humans. We can presume it is the other way around too. Hundreds of drugs have been rejected because they weren't effective in mice. Some of those probably would have worked fine in humans.
You can load any of a number of non-OEM versions of Android on your phone for free and you have access to the Play Store if you download and install the freely-distributed Google-apps zip.
I'm thinking if they're getting paid, it's for a service such as supporting OEMs in porting Android to their phones.
That only works if Microsoft sells the computer. Somehow, Microsoft wants to get paid for providing the operating system. I don't think that's unreasonable.
What's unreasonable is charging you for a computer that has Windows on it. If the same computer (or a better one) is offered with no OS at a price that's lower than the Windows machine by at least the OEM price of Windows, that's reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
The article says the image that gave the only significant difference by political ideology was a mutilated body.
That's true, but Space Ship Two is all about sending tourists to "space", isn't it? That doesn't feel like a worthy cause to me.
What with Snowden and Wikileaks, every reporter in the world has classified documents on her computer.
You must be suffering from the misapprehension that you have to have done something wrong for evidence to be used against you in court.
You think there are qualifications for this sort of thing?
This is way too much work. What do you say we just channel astral water?
From February 2013:
"The 150-foot-wide (45 meters) asteroid 2012 DA14 — which will zoom within 17,200 miles (27,000 kilometers) of Earth on Friday, marking the closest approach by such a large space rock that astronomers have ever known about in advance — may harbor $65 billion of recoverable water and $130 billion in metals, say officials with celestial mining firm Deep Space Industries."
http://www.space.com/19758-asteroid-worth-billions-2012-da14-flyby.html
Yeah, that's petty expensive water and any value it may be said to have relies on there being a market in space. There is not.
Let's say it's essentially solid ice. That would be about 15000 cubic meters of ice, so they're pricing it at at least 4.3 million dollars per cubic meter, or 4.3 dollars per liter. So yeah, pricey water under the best assumption. More likely it's mostly rock like other near-earth objects.
Now let's say it's mostly rock. It would have to be some pretty damn special rock to be worth $8.6 million per cubic meter.
These numbers were simply made up by people who are interested in doing it for the sake of doing it as long as somebody else pays for it.
Why would they quit using something that keeps working?
Not to mention you miss them if they don't make a call. Not to mention you count them if they are tourists visiting for a weekend. This method would massively overestimate the population in tourist areas and business disctricts where nobody lives but lots of people work. Census counts where people reside.
And the article says the estimate got 30% of the population and they had to make a huge correction (multiplying by about 3.3!) to get close to France's actual population.
But that's OK. Let's just chip everybody.
agreed. According to the article, "Records in France came from 17 million users, about 30% of the population, and contained only the day of the call and the phone tower locations, due to differences in the carrier’s policy."
They had to use an empirical model to get estimates that were kind of close to the actual population density.
Or your boss? Or that coworker you pissed off in the lunchroom? There's more than one way to get rid of an annoying person in the office.
This is the same unnameable spy agency that simultaneously ignored Fox News's daily Benghazi drumbeat, right?
My city is taking subscribers for gigabit service starting next week, and it's not on the list.
There's an app for that.
Yeah, I bet all those high-resolution display panels will be lighter than windows, free to operate and won't require a massive computer system to drive them.
It depends on the animal. The closer the animal is to the target, the more likely results are relevant. Mice are a poor choice if you're looking for something to be safe and effective in humans because they're not even primates. But heck, at least they're placentals.
But you're right. Many drugs that worked in mice don't work in humans, or are toxic or have unacceptable side effects in humans. We can presume it is the other way around too. Hundreds of drugs have been rejected because they weren't effective in mice. Some of those probably would have worked fine in humans.
Pretty sure Microsoft won't go for licensing its OS for $1.
Oh, not another one.
Nothing in what you wrote contradicts a word of what I wrote.
What do you suppose happens to the frequency of disadvantageous recessives over several generations in a population where they're very common?
Why do you think harmful recessives are rare in the first place?
You can load any of a number of non-OEM versions of Android on your phone for free and you have access to the Play Store if you download and install the freely-distributed Google-apps zip.
I'm thinking if they're getting paid, it's for a service such as supporting OEMs in porting Android to their phones.
Good point. How long does it take to produce a new animal breed?
Not so much. With inbreeding, there's strong selection to reduce the frequency of disadvantageous genes.
If the people had an average of 3.1 children per generation, that makes 7 billion people in 20 generations. So, large families not required.
That only works if Microsoft sells the computer. Somehow, Microsoft wants to get paid for providing the operating system. I don't think that's unreasonable.
What's unreasonable is charging you for a computer that has Windows on it. If the same computer (or a better one) is offered with no OS at a price that's lower than the Windows machine by at least the OEM price of Windows, that's reasonable.
How much do they charge you for putting Android on your phone?