After the Episode 1 fiasco, which IMDb says brought in $65 million in the USA alone on its opening weekend, people proceeded to watch Episode 2, bringing in $80 million in the USA on its opening weekend. I don't really see this trend changing regardless the movies' qualities, unless they drop down to catastrophic levels compared to Episode I or something.
I think the short answer is -- if there was no dust in the martian atmosphere coloring it to its characteristic color (i.e. a rust color from the rust in its sky), it would be, no, not bright blue like earth's, but almost black because it's so thin. But if you'd see any color from a sky cleared from dust, it would probably be blue. Anyway, its sky isn't usually blue because it's so thick of iron oxide. Sunsets on Mars can also show a blue halo around the sun.
Mars Pathfinder captured some interesting true color (or at least near-true color) images of the martian sky while it paid Mars a visit: Mars Pathfinder Images. This is one interesting true color image of the martian sky.
It was allowed because the global.com domain registry doesn't ensure that you hold the registered name before letting you register it, unlike other more anal schemes such as.com.au.
I think.com should have this rule put into effect (like on so many other registries), then have some major cleaning up done and those who didn't have a registered name (i.e. free-viagra-now.com) be moved to the.info registry. That would make that one a bit more used. Or maybe that obscure.biz would be even better. I always thought that.com should not only be for COMmercial, but for real COMpanies too.:-(
Yeah, imagine the work to get all this done, imagine the technical problems, and imagine the law suits and... yeah. But one can dream.:-)
Yeah, 0 for "really cold" (or why not: "roughly the coldest temperature most people experience", i.e. depends on where you live) and 100 for "really hot" (as you again say, remember we are talking about most of the population, not all) must be much better since these are, as we can all see and you so well explain to us, not arbitrary at all.
Hmm, you might have a point, although I think it's far fetched to deem a coming protocol to be a danger without being overly defensive when it comes to software updates in general. Yes, it's a possible source for coming programming mistakes and when it comes to changes in networked software, there's as usual a chance that these might cause security holes. I'm just saying that we shouldn't merely because of this turn around and run away from the technology, looking for alternative ways to increase the address space. In short -- I just don't think "risk to cause bugs" is enough reason to stay away from a technology, like the author of this article seem to think.
He is fairly aggressive at attacking IPv6, and even contradicts himself in his fury against the protocol...
all IPv6 code is untested and therefore insecure
Yes, if you don't count university networks that has been using 6bone for several years now. Read up a bit on 6bone, and you'll see that the primary purpose of it is to function as a testbed for IPv6. But of course, computer scientists aren't really able to find and fix problems in the protocol.
IPv6 makes encourages 'peer-to-peer based copyright violation systems
I won't even comment on this...
Deploying IPv6 means that every application that uses Internet addresses needs to be changed.
However, isn't IPv6 designed to be backwards compatible? I.e. have a separate address space that emulates IPv4? So there isn't an urgent need to switch *now* when it starts getting used? Using the IPv6 stack should not mean an unability to talk with IPv4 clients.
Today, most routers come equipped with special-purpose integrated circuits that can route IPv4 packets very quickly. But because there is no demand for it, those routers don't have similar hardware that can route V6 in hardware
I'll just let him contradict himself:
"The code that lets computers talk on an IPv6-enabled network is now built into the current versions of Windows XP, MacOS, Linux, and many forms of Unix. Every router made by Cisco comes ready to run IPv6. So does every Nokia mobile phone. The whole world is getting dressed up for the IPv6 party."
If they're already implementing software support for IPv6 before it's even starting to get used, doesn't he think this is a sign that the manufacturers are dedicated to bring hardware IPv6 support once it gets even more widely used? If not, he needs to explain why.
He complains about upgrade costs too, which seems to be a concept never heard or experienced by him before, as he seem to be in shock while discussing it.
But what IPv6 boosters won't tell you, unless you press them, is that every new IPv6 nameserver, Web server, Web browser, and so on has new code--code in which security problems may lurk.
True, updated software might get new bugs if they aren't tested properly. What's new? This risk is taken daily by adopters of upgraded or new software.
Well, as soon as they're going to get rid of those airbags blocking their way, they *will* perform a whole lot of mineral and soil tests to see if their area could possibly have been a place for life in the past. Sure, one could think it's mostly for PR (and I would also understand this as NASA are having budget problems), but don't forget both MER rovers are techincally highly advanced devices all the way to drills and microscopes for a mini field laboratory. They wouldn't have wasted all the million dollars for this equipment if it was just for PR.
I thought this too first, but it's not that. It's just a filter they applied, and told the press why. I posted about it in another place here.
They also released a version without the filter (or maybe, rather a picture where they had reversed the changes artificially, since the bandwidth probably is too high for them to prefer re-sending a high res picture). Was going to post the link here, but can't find it right now:) Trust me, it used the same color balance as previous color images;)
as the blue and green spots on the color calibration target (the sundial) suddenly converted to bright red and brown.
The "sudden" change happened as NASA "suddenly" applied another filter for the camera. They do this to better detect certain things in the picture I suppose. They spoke about it on a press conference when they was asked this question.
Q. Then what we're seeing that's in that Pancam image doesn't correspond to what we'd see if we were standing there?
Jim: we have a pair of red filters that give us stereo. The red you're asking about is the infrared filter which is different from the red humans see. We can convert that red easily. We also have a red filter that matches human sight red but we prefer to use the infrared filter to get matchup with both cameras. Two cameras each have 8 filters. One filter on one eye is a dense welder-like filter to look at the sun. On the left camera is low frequency and the right camera is higher frequencies. Total of 11 unique wavelengths.
Site was showing signs of Slashdotting, so I'll quote one of the more important sections...
Results
Here are the benchmark results presented in both table and graph form. The Python and Python/Psyco results are excluded from the graph since the large numbers throw off the graph's scale and render the other results illegible. All scores are given in seconds; lower is better.
I'm hoping for the best, but will wait until a big "woohoo" until news from the NASA briefing to be held in the coming week has reached us. I can't just read about some journalists telling about what someone in the Bush administration has told them and be fine with that. But I really hope Bush actually means this and it's just not a PR trick.:-(
What do Mars mission supporters think about dying children on earth, specifically deaths due to massive poverty and lack of resources?
Here's the thought of one of them: That funding should be taken from research, development and use of military power. There are two reasons to this: 1) military actions directly negatively impact other peoples lives as opposed to science funding, and 2) NASA's funding is nothing compared to the amount of military funding.
Why do people constantly attack space science when that has never directly harmed a human being (well, except for accidents of course), when there's so much else in the world that does?
Hmm... this sounds awfuly similar to an awful mistake made in the past. Spain reluctantly sends Columbus to America. Before you know it, they've colonized much of central/south America. This leads to a series of wars which has yet to end.
Seriously. If you look back, every war to this date can be traced back to some form of colonization or another.
Because wars happen when colonizing inhabited areas? People don't want their ground they live on to be taken away. North/south america was inhabited before Columbus, etc
1. The moon is only 3 days away. Mars is months away. Logistically, it's easier.
2. The moon gives us an opportunity to work out engineering issues of establishing a permanent base on foreign celestial bodies.
3. There may be immediate tangible benefits to a moon base: mining, factories, observatories, astronaut training, research.
Also, if this mission is successful and the public see that some actual benefits are coming from a permanent base on another world, that could open the eyes of funders for future Mars missions, and look like a bit more natural step than just going straight to Mars.
I actually thought this troll had some interesting thoughts, although he unfortunately quickly went downhill with the final redundant and aggressive statement.
Do you really think that what you are doing is helping mankind?
Possible. Maybe depends on what we end up doing on this planet.
Is sending little robots to crawl around on other planets really helping to save manking from itself?
We obviously need to understand the planet first if we're even going to think about doing anything there.
In the long run, isn't this kind of technology only useful for creating systems wherein a few technological elites have all the power and the rest of the masses die of starvation?
That's maybe not anything you should ask NASA, but something you should ask politicians. I can't see how that question relates to NASA, which only does scientific research. How the "techonological elites" and the more poor people or people less fortunate in society should be integrated with each other are entirely a political question, and not one relating to exploration of space.
Yeah Americans are the only ones who have schadenfreude on Slashdot. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Why don't anyone get this through their heads?! This goes to both ways. I don't think too highly of posts like "HAHAHA I guess US is looking for their lost WMD on Mars now!!111" either...
I only made that comment since I thought the parent made such an arrogant post. I must also say that I do believe using wrong units were a bit, well, sloppy, but that's not saying Europe hasn't had a similar problem. If you look further, I comment in another post about the idiocy of Europeans uploading the Ariane 4 software to the Ariane 5, causing the rocket to just become a damn expensive firework.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
After the Episode 1 fiasco, which IMDb says brought in $65 million in the USA alone on its opening weekend, people proceeded to watch Episode 2, bringing in $80 million in the USA on its opening weekend. I don't really see this trend changing regardless the movies' qualities, unless they drop down to catastrophic levels compared to Episode I or something.
I think the short answer is -- if there was no dust in the martian atmosphere coloring it to its characteristic color (i.e. a rust color from the rust in its sky), it would be, no, not bright blue like earth's, but almost black because it's so thin. But if you'd see any color from a sky cleared from dust, it would probably be blue. Anyway, its sky isn't usually blue because it's so thick of iron oxide. Sunsets on Mars can also show a blue halo around the sun.
Mars Pathfinder captured some interesting true color (or at least near-true color) images of the martian sky while it paid Mars a visit: Mars Pathfinder Images. This is one interesting true color image of the martian sky.
... and as the house of the unbelievers were razed and scorched to the earth, their tags blinked until the end of days.
- Weapons against the mind: Electromagnetic Weapons and Mind Control from CNN's Special Assignment, anno 1985 (which litterally tells: in Soviet Russia, weapons control YOU)
... and an old Slashdot article :-)
- Controlling Robots with the Mind
-
So what's this first name?
I think it's "rm". Sounds unusual enough to me at least.
It was allowed because the global .com domain registry doesn't ensure that you hold the registered name before letting you register it, unlike other more anal schemes such as .com.au.
.com should have this rule put into effect (like on so many other registries), then have some major cleaning up done and those who didn't have a registered name (i.e. free-viagra-now.com) be moved to the .info registry. That would make that one a bit more used. Or maybe that obscure .biz would be even better. I always thought that .com should not only be for COMmercial, but for real COMpanies too. :-(
:-)
I think
Yeah, imagine the work to get all this done, imagine the technical problems, and imagine the law suits and... yeah. But one can dream.
You might be blocking your referrer info. Some browsers can be set for this to let users preserve their privacy better.
Yeah, 0 for "really cold" (or why not: "roughly the coldest temperature most people experience", i.e. depends on where you live) and 100 for "really hot" (as you again say, remember we are talking about most of the population, not all) must be much better since these are, as we can all see and you so well explain to us, not arbitrary at all.
Hmm, you might have a point, although I think it's far fetched to deem a coming protocol to be a danger without being overly defensive when it comes to software updates in general. Yes, it's a possible source for coming programming mistakes and when it comes to changes in networked software, there's as usual a chance that these might cause security holes. I'm just saying that we shouldn't merely because of this turn around and run away from the technology, looking for alternative ways to increase the address space. In short -- I just don't think "risk to cause bugs" is enough reason to stay away from a technology, like the author of this article seem to think.
Not your joke at least. :-) No wait, you just pulled off the same joke twice. :-P
He is fairly aggressive at attacking IPv6, and even contradicts himself in his fury against the protocol...
all IPv6 code is untested and therefore insecure
Yes, if you don't count university networks that has been using 6bone for several years now. Read up a bit on 6bone, and you'll see that the primary purpose of it is to function as a testbed for IPv6. But of course, computer scientists aren't really able to find and fix problems in the protocol.
IPv6 makes encourages 'peer-to-peer based copyright violation systems
I won't even comment on this...
Deploying IPv6 means that every application that uses Internet addresses needs to be changed.
However, isn't IPv6 designed to be backwards compatible? I.e. have a separate address space that emulates IPv4? So there isn't an urgent need to switch *now* when it starts getting used? Using the IPv6 stack should not mean an unability to talk with IPv4 clients.
Today, most routers come equipped with special-purpose integrated circuits that can route IPv4 packets very quickly. But because there is no demand for it, those routers don't have similar hardware that can route V6 in hardware
I'll just let him contradict himself:
"The code that lets computers talk on an IPv6-enabled network is now built into the current versions of Windows XP, MacOS, Linux, and many forms of Unix. Every router made by Cisco comes ready to run IPv6. So does every Nokia mobile phone. The whole world is getting dressed up for the IPv6 party."
If they're already implementing software support for IPv6 before it's even starting to get used, doesn't he think this is a sign that the manufacturers are dedicated to bring hardware IPv6 support once it gets even more widely used? If not, he needs to explain why.
He complains about upgrade costs too, which seems to be a concept never heard or experienced by him before, as he seem to be in shock while discussing it.
But what IPv6 boosters won't tell you, unless you press them, is that every new IPv6 nameserver, Web server, Web browser, and so on has new code--code in which security problems may lurk.
True, updated software might get new bugs if they aren't tested properly. What's new? This risk is taken daily by adopters of upgraded or new software.
Btw, no restrictions like max monthly up/download data
I'm having BBB as my ISP and get 10 Mbps up/down for, hmm.. maybe around $53 / month.
Well, as soon as they're going to get rid of those airbags blocking their way, they *will* perform a whole lot of mineral and soil tests to see if their area could possibly have been a place for life in the past. Sure, one could think it's mostly for PR (and I would also understand this as NASA are having budget problems), but don't forget both MER rovers are techincally highly advanced devices all the way to drills and microscopes for a mini field laboratory. They wouldn't have wasted all the million dollars for this equipment if it was just for PR.
This should make your head explode. :-)
I thought this too first, but it's not that. It's just a filter they applied, and told the press why. I posted about it in another place here.
:) Trust me, it used the same color balance as previous color images ;)
They also released a version without the filter (or maybe, rather a picture where they had reversed the changes artificially, since the bandwidth probably is too high for them to prefer re-sending a high res picture). Was going to post the link here, but can't find it right now
as the blue and green spots on the color calibration target (the sundial) suddenly converted to bright red and brown.
The "sudden" change happened as NASA "suddenly" applied another filter for the camera. They do this to better detect certain things in the picture I suppose. They spoke about it on a press conference when they was asked this question.
From Mozilla guru Asa Dotzler's weblog:
Q. Then what we're seeing that's in that Pancam image doesn't correspond to what we'd see if we were standing there?
Jim: we have a pair of red filters that give us stereo. The red you're asking about is the infrared filter which is different from the red humans see. We can convert that red easily. We also have a red filter that matches human sight red but we prefer to use the infrared filter to get matchup with both cameras. Two cameras each have 8 filters. One filter on one eye is a dense welder-like filter to look at the sun. On the left camera is low frequency and the right camera is higher frequencies. Total of 11 unique wavelengths.
Site was showing signs of Slashdotting, so I'll quote one of the more important sections...
Results
Here are the benchmark results presented in both table and graph form. The Python and Python/Psyco results are excluded from the graph since the large numbers throw off the graph's scale and render the other results illegible. All scores are given in seconds; lower is better.
int long double trig I/O TOTAL
Visual C++ 9.6 18.8 6.4 3.5 10.5 48.8
Visual C# 9.7 23.9 17.7 4.1 9.9 65.3
gcc C 9.8 28.8 9.5 14.9 10.0 73.0
Visual Basic 9.8 23.7 17.7 4.1 30.7 85.9
Visual J# 9.6 23.9 17.5 4.2 35.1 90.4
Java 1.3.1 14.5 29.6 19.0 22.1 12.3 97.6
Java 1.4.2 9.3 20.2 6.5 57.1 10.1 103.1
Python/Psyco 29.7 615.4 100.4 13.1 10.5 769.1
Python 322.4 891.9 405.7 47.1 11.9 1679.0
I'm hoping for the best, but will wait until a big "woohoo" until news from the NASA briefing to be held in the coming week has reached us. I can't just read about some journalists telling about what someone in the Bush administration has told them and be fine with that. But I really hope Bush actually means this and it's just not a PR trick. :-(
What do Mars mission supporters think about dying children on earth, specifically deaths due to massive poverty and lack of resources?
Here's the thought of one of them: That funding should be taken from research, development and use of military power. There are two reasons to this: 1) military actions directly negatively impact other peoples lives as opposed to science funding, and 2) NASA's funding is nothing compared to the amount of military funding.
Why do people constantly attack space science when that has never directly harmed a human being (well, except for accidents of course), when there's so much else in the world that does?
Hmm... this sounds awfuly similar to an awful mistake made in the past. Spain reluctantly sends Columbus to America. Before you know it, they've colonized much of central/south America. This leads to a series of wars which has yet to end.
Seriously. If you look back, every war to this date can be traced back to some form of colonization or another.
Because wars happen when colonizing inhabited areas? People don't want their ground they live on to be taken away. North/south america was inhabited before Columbus, etc
1. The moon is only 3 days away. Mars is months away. Logistically, it's easier.
2. The moon gives us an opportunity to work out engineering issues of establishing a permanent base on foreign celestial bodies.
3. There may be immediate tangible benefits to a moon base: mining, factories, observatories, astronaut training, research.
Also, if this mission is successful and the public see that some actual benefits are coming from a permanent base on another world, that could open the eyes of funders for future Mars missions, and look like a bit more natural step than just going straight to Mars.
I actually thought this troll had some interesting thoughts, although he unfortunately quickly went downhill with the final redundant and aggressive statement.
Do you really think that what you are doing is helping mankind?
Possible. Maybe depends on what we end up doing on this planet.
Is sending little robots to crawl around on other planets really helping to save manking from itself?
We obviously need to understand the planet first if we're even going to think about doing anything there.
In the long run, isn't this kind of technology only useful for creating systems wherein a few technological elites have all the power and the rest of the masses die of starvation?
That's maybe not anything you should ask NASA, but something you should ask politicians. I can't see how that question relates to NASA, which only does scientific research. How the "techonological elites" and the more poor people or people less fortunate in society should be integrated with each other are entirely a political question, and not one relating to exploration of space.
Yeah Americans are the only ones who have schadenfreude on Slashdot. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Why don't anyone get this through their heads?! This goes to both ways. I don't think too highly of posts like "HAHAHA I guess US is looking for their lost WMD on Mars now!!111" either...
I only made that comment since I thought the parent made such an arrogant post. I must also say that I do believe using wrong units were a bit, well, sloppy, but that's not saying Europe hasn't had a similar problem. If you look further, I comment in another post about the idiocy of Europeans uploading the Ariane 4 software to the Ariane 5, causing the rocket to just become a damn expensive firework. :-)