It could go sky high and still fail in its mission.
Indeed, it couldn't go sky high and not fail in its mission. With those kinds of rapid value changes and deflationary tendency, it would, under those circumstances, prove itself to be a valuable commodity, but it would be a very poor choice for a currency. Alas, goldbugs usually don't understand the difference...
In the physical literature about the n-body problem (n 3), sometimes reference is made to the impossibility of solving the n-body problem (via employing the above approach). However, care must be taken when discussing the 'impossibility' of a solution, as this refers only to the method of first integrals (compare the theorems by Abel and Galois about the impossibility of solving algebraic equations of degree five or higher by means of formulas only involving roots).
We can confirm the ecliptics for billions of star systems; no exoplanets are required, given that the majority of stars are part of multiple star systems. And there's no reason to think that some bizarre unknown force causes systems with only one luminous member to align their ecliptics in a way that systems with multiple luminous members don't.
Almost as disturbing as their failure to acknowledge that there may be dozens of species of jumping spider that are currently unknown! Indeed, these are just two of the many things that might be true that they fail to acknowledge in their paper on a particular study that wasn't studying those things....
It's just an example of some place you're unlikely to know the capital of. Common sense would have it in Minneapolis, so of course it's in some dinky nearby town instead...
And it took only actually watching the video to note that it reads -45.9ft when it hits the ground, so if that is to be taken seriously (assuming it isn't damaged), the take-off point was about 45ft higher than the house, and true altitude above ground was over 300ft at the point it was shot.
The categories are not mutually exclusive; whether something is or is not a toy has no relevance to the question of whether it is or is not an aircraft. You think the law doesn't apply, the FAA says it does, the courts will have to decide.
Yes, but if I shoot someone's car who parked is on the street 200 ft outside my property and assert it was my right because he was parked "too close" to my property, the law is not going to consider "pretty close" to be close enough.
Airspace in general is the public domain. At what point it above your property it becomes yours is a legal grey area.
So when it hits the ground, telemetry shows -45.9ft which means he was actually over the neighbor's house at 154ft and not the 200ft he claims.
You fail basic math; the difference between 200 and -45.9 is 245.9.
Also, it was well over 200ft at the start. I didn't go frame by frame, but I did manage to pause at very close to the right point and it appears to read 262ft when shot. That would suggest a fall of over 300ft if the -45ft at the end is taken seriously, but I suspect it might just be damaged at that point...
Re:During Pluto's day - how light is it?
on
Pluto's Haze
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I would be much more interested in seeing how day on the planet Pluto compares to night with moonlight on planet earth.
The sun on Pluto is about 100 times brighter than a full moon on Earth.
I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me.
As a more liberty-minded individual, I don't want anyone restricting me in that manner, be they governments, corporations, "market forces" or whatever, and I understand that regulations are necessary to insure freedom in the market (a truly free market is as free as any anarchy, which is to say, not free at all -- laws and regulations are what protect the freedom of individuals).
...and good for that. Bad standards arise from committees sitting around spit-balling ideas. Good standards come from committees blessing existing practices already proven in the field. Maybe you smooth out a rough spot or two, but ultimately it ought to look for the most part like what's already out there working well. "Not in scope" was precisely the right response for most of the junk people wanted to throw into HTTP/2.0. Alas, it does give people who didn't their favorite feature thrown in ample opportunity to whine. Kamp's whining has the wonderful virtue of being amusingly self-contradictory. "History has shown overwhelmingly that if you want to change the world for the better, you should deliver good tools for making it better, not policies for making it better." Exactly. Trying to improve the world by setting policy via IETF standards, though, is exactly what the IETF did not do in this case, by not adding those things he thinks should be used as a matter of course, and that's what's making Kamp so mad.
Chris Byars, CEO of Ion Productions, the company behind the XM42, told me: "It is legal where there are no laws or codes written against such a device."
Snort. Because the democrats who dominated congress up to now have done sooo well at eliminating graft & pork. Hell, we can barely remember what those are thanks to the wonderful dems taking care of all that is wrong in the world and sprinkling fairy dust in our morning cereal...
Find a new axe to grind, your old one is worn out.
Pot, meet kettle.
The difference here, of course, is that neither side refrains from indulging in fatty pork products, but only one of them is claiming government spending is bad while doing so.
Buy a single damn video card. [...] That's likely why he thinks it's retarded... it doesn't solve any problems that aren't better solved by other solutions.
I'm not seeing how a single video card will help solve the problem of teaching how to build a cluster out of multiple networked computers. Nor would it look nearly as cool, which is directly relevant to the purpose of (to quote TFA) "getting children interested in science and engineering". It sounds like what GCHQ came up with succeeds much better at achieving the goals in question.
we can only see 50% of it's surface on any given night
So which nights can we see the other side? Oh, never.
Actually, on any night other than the one precisely a lunar month from the given night, you can see some of that other side (the 50% you can't see tonight). That's what libration does -- expose some of that other 50% that you can't see tonight. Not all of it, sure, but some. You can only see 50% on any given night, but you can see 59% over time. Thus, 18% of tonight's "other side" will be "this side" on some other night.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, come on. It's mostly just silly. It's like talking with an Eliza program.
Well, yes, it's not going to produce high art. But then, when much of human-produced content is on the level of Sharknado 4...
It could go sky high and still fail in its mission.
Indeed, it couldn't go sky high and not fail in its mission. With those kinds of rapid value changes and deflationary tendency, it would, under those circumstances, prove itself to be a valuable commodity, but it would be a very poor choice for a currency. Alas, goldbugs usually don't understand the difference...
In the physical literature about the n-body problem (n 3), sometimes reference is made to the impossibility of solving the n-body problem (via employing the above approach). However, care must be taken when discussing the 'impossibility' of a solution, as this refers only to the method of first integrals (compare the theorems by Abel and Galois about the impossibility of solving algebraic equations of degree five or higher by means of formulas only involving roots).
See here.
Yup! Things are much better under LMDE2 "Betsy". Not only is it updated regularly, it's updated more regularly than standard Mint!
We can confirm the ecliptics for billions of star systems; no exoplanets are required, given that the majority of stars are part of multiple star systems. And there's no reason to think that some bizarre unknown force causes systems with only one luminous member to align their ecliptics in a way that systems with multiple luminous members don't.
Almost as disturbing as their failure to acknowledge that there may be dozens of species of jumping spider that are currently unknown! Indeed, these are just two of the many things that might be true that they fail to acknowledge in their paper on a particular study that wasn't studying those things....
Anyway, it's one continuous metro area, so it doesn't really matter.
That's what the people from St. Paul (and the other suburbs of Minneapolis) say... :p
It's just an example of some place you're unlikely to know the capital of. Common sense would have it in Minneapolis, so of course it's in some dinky nearby town instead...
And it took only actually watching the video to note that it reads -45.9ft when it hits the ground, so if that is to be taken seriously (assuming it isn't damaged), the take-off point was about 45ft higher than the house, and true altitude above ground was over 300ft at the point it was shot.
It is a toy and not an aircraft.
The categories are not mutually exclusive; whether something is or is not a toy has no relevance to the question of whether it is or is not an aircraft. You think the law doesn't apply, the FAA says it does, the courts will have to decide.
200 feet is still pretty close.
Yes, but if I shoot someone's car who parked is on the street 200 ft outside my property and assert it was my right because he was parked "too close" to my property, the law is not going to consider "pretty close" to be close enough.
Airspace in general is the public domain. At what point it above your property it becomes yours is a legal grey area.
So when it hits the ground, telemetry shows -45.9ft which means he was actually over the neighbor's house at 154ft and not the 200ft he claims.
You fail basic math; the difference between 200 and -45.9 is 245.9.
Also, it was well over 200ft at the start. I didn't go frame by frame, but I did manage to pause at very close to the right point and it appears to read 262ft when shot. That would suggest a fall of over 300ft if the -45ft at the end is taken seriously, but I suspect it might just be damaged at that point...
I would be much more interested in seeing how day on the planet Pluto compares to night with moonlight on planet earth.
The sun on Pluto is about 100 times brighter than a full moon on Earth.
I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me.
As a more liberty-minded individual, I don't want anyone restricting me in that manner, be they governments, corporations, "market forces" or whatever, and I understand that regulations are necessary to insure freedom in the market (a truly free market is as free as any anarchy, which is to say, not free at all -- laws and regulations are what protect the freedom of individuals).
For fun, ask an astronomer to define "metal"! XD
Aspartame gives me severe, crippling migraines.
Are you using caffeine-free soda to test this? Just making sure; headaches are also a symptom of caffeine withdrawl.
Why did this get to be a post on slashdot?
n00b... :p
...and good for that. Bad standards arise from committees sitting around spit-balling ideas. Good standards come from committees blessing existing practices already proven in the field. Maybe you smooth out a rough spot or two, but ultimately it ought to look for the most part like what's already out there working well. "Not in scope" was precisely the right response for most of the junk people wanted to throw into HTTP/2.0. Alas, it does give people who didn't their favorite feature thrown in ample opportunity to whine. Kamp's whining has the wonderful virtue of being amusingly self-contradictory. "History has shown overwhelmingly that if you want to change the world for the better, you should deliver good tools for making it better, not policies for making it better." Exactly. Trying to improve the world by setting policy via IETF standards, though, is exactly what the IETF did not do in this case, by not adding those things he thinks should be used as a matter of course, and that's what's making Kamp so mad.
You say that now, but when someone starts making kits to build trebuchets into the back of pick-up trucks...
(The more I think about this idea, the more ridiculously awesome it sounds.)
Surprisingly, considering all the crazy "experiments" we tried as kids, nobody ever got hurt. Though there were some pretty close calls.
inorite? When I think back on it, I'm utterly amazed to have survived childhood.
Chris Byars, CEO of Ion Productions, the company behind the XM42, told me: "It is legal where there are no laws or codes written against such a device."
Incoming legislation in 3... 2... 1...
Snort. Because the democrats who dominated congress up to now have done sooo well at eliminating graft & pork. Hell, we can barely remember what those are thanks to the wonderful dems taking care of all that is wrong in the world and sprinkling fairy dust in our morning cereal...
Find a new axe to grind, your old one is worn out.
Pot, meet kettle.
The difference here, of course, is that neither side refrains from indulging in fatty pork products, but only one of them is claiming government spending is bad while doing so.
Buy a single damn video card. [...] That's likely why he thinks it's retarded... it doesn't solve any problems that aren't better solved by other solutions.
I'm not seeing how a single video card will help solve the problem of teaching how to build a cluster out of multiple networked computers. Nor would it look nearly as cool, which is directly relevant to the purpose of (to quote TFA) "getting children interested in science and engineering". It sounds like what GCHQ came up with succeeds much better at achieving the goals in question.
But remember, the ball got rolling for this in 1934, long before it was obvious battleships were obsolete.
Yamamoto was saying this at the time, but no one was listening...
we can only see 50% of it's surface on any given night
So which nights can we see the other side? Oh, never.
Actually, on any night other than the one precisely a lunar month from the given night, you can see some of that other side (the 50% you can't see tonight). That's what libration does -- expose some of that other 50% that you can't see tonight. Not all of it, sure, but some. You can only see 50% on any given night, but you can see 59% over time. Thus, 18% of tonight's "other side" will be "this side" on some other night.