The summary makes it sound like they actually proved that dark matter exist, not simply added to the inference of it's existence:(
Science is not in the business of making provable claims. It's impossible to prove anything using the scientific method. Science makes falsifiable claims, and any experiment that fails to falsify them confirms the theory, but most certainly does not prove it. An experiment that "confirms" a theory is one that produces a result compatible with that theory under circumstances where a different result would have falsified it. Confirmation merely strengthens a theory, it cannot ever prove it.
1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify.
2. To make firmer; strengthen
See definition 2. Incidentally, in science, "confirm" always means 2. Certainty is impossible to establish using the scientific method. An experiment that produces the expected result confirms the theory, but certainly does not prove it.
Actually, it just means the test must be administered by a local. It needs to be calibrated for the local sensibilities and responses judged likewise. Someone from the area could probably use the test to good effect, and have the same experience with abject failure when visiting MA.
that the FCC is corrupt. Colin Powell's son was the head of it for a while, only because of his Dad's connections.
Okay. Do you have any evidence or reason to think Michael Powell was corrupt? The way you just stated that, it makes it sound like you think he's corrupt for no other reason than who his relatives are, which is just plain stupid...
That's interesting. I guess they will have to find a shooting star collector if there is such a thing. I though these kind of disasters made people sick and caused serious unbalance if the meteor is big enough to screw with the balance of where it hits, the people of the town and the person that owned the building probably don't think of it as a blessing though at least not yet if what you are saying will happen that someone would actually pay money for it. I guess I am a cynic, I could see geologists studying it, not buying it.
There's a good market for them on eBay. Of course, unless it's an extremely large or rate meteorite, despite with GP said, it's unlike to be worth more than the property damage. Typical meteorites look to be going from around $10-50. The fact of the matter is, meteorites aren't very rare. OTOH, there's one current bid up to over $15 million right now. eBay search
<sigh> Poor Uranus. People who can't pronounce your name correctly are constantly making butt jokes about you, whereas those who can pronounce your name correctly are constantly making pee jokes about you...
If your data is not in your possession, how do you know others won't see it or edit it without your permission?
It's called a lack of clinical paranoia, combined with the fact that I'm not the president, a CIA agent, or anyone else of importance. I could post my data publicly on a website and count on the fact that no one would see it, much less make any attempt to edit it.
There are people who have to worry about the kinds of issues you raise. But for every one of them, there are hundreds of people who are concerned about those things due to some delusional state, not sure of it's paranoia or delusions of grandeur.
Likewise, I don't need triple-DES for my encrypted data when no one would even bother with the effort to run it through rot13...
On the other hand, nobody can beat Debian's huge software repository.
I had to switch an older machine from Debian to Slackware a few years ago because of the huge software repository. apt stopped being usable due to requiring too much memory. Now, I could manually download and install the dpkg files I suppose, but once I could no longer simply apt-get update/upgrade, it didn't seem to make much sense to keep using Debian. The way Debian packages things assumes apt -- they break things down more and expect dependency resolution, which is exactly what they should do, but it makes it a pain to try to use if you can't use apt. Moving to Slackware was easier...
All the silliness about binary drivers aside, we're talking about a VERY common video chipset here, and honestly, the vast majority of video cards in the world come from a very short list of manufacturers who only release closed binaries. It's time to start being a little more realistic about making sure the upgrade processes account for that.
No no, ideology trumps practicality. If you want things the other way around, you'll have to pay for it.
I have no problem with an OS designed around a particular ideology. I have a problem when it doesn't just promote it but insists upon it. "If you (some company) don't do it the way we think you should, we'll make sure someone else (innocent end-users) are made to suffer for it!" Yeah, that's really effective. Way to stick it to 'em!
The thing is from what I can tell this is a Gnome "Feature" to hide complexities.
Oh yeah... I remember why I stopped using desktop Linux now. The Gnome developers did everything in their power to make it damn near impossible to use, while paradoxically claiming this was being done to make it easier. They had done it wrong on the previous versions (with an expert "level" that you had to choose globally to see the occasional advanced configuration detail you only occasionally needed to tweak), then they "corrected" this by removing all such configuration options entirely except through using a RegEdit-type interface (RegEdit for Linux! Let's take the worst feature of Windows and port that!). All the while ignoring the obvious solution of an "Advanced..." button to keep those options available but out of the way most of the time.
I gave up when I realized the "UI experts" just didn't have a frakkin' clue, save that if it was a solution that worked in a certain other popular OS, it ought to be avoided here, even in those cases where it made sense. Except for the RegEdit thing, of course -- that apparently they thought that, of all things, was a good idea to steal... I don't see how this can be explained without invoking "brain damage" in the explanation somehow...
I love Linux, but Gnome is pure comedy...
It may be better these days, I dunno. I stopped using Linux on the desktop in 2005. Still use it every day, but I ssh to it from machines with decent desktop OS's...
Switched to Slackware because Mandrake 7.1 sucked.
You got out at the right time. 8 was even worse, and 9 was terrible. They eventually drove me to Gentoo, and by its 3rd or 4th version Ubuntu won me over.
But hey, at least some of those earlier Mandrake releases were better than Red Hat was at the time. It had that going for it. Hell, I'd say 7 and maybe even 8 were still better than their analogous Red Hat releases.
Unfortunately, that was the main thing they had going for them, and they abandoned it. When I started using Mandrake (5.1 IIRC), it tracked Red Hat release for release, being an enhanced Red Hat. It took each Red Hat release and fixed everything wrong with it. I loved it and happily switch from Red Hat. It stopped tracking things quite so closely with 6.0, but it was still decent. I installed 7.0 and switched to Debian shortly thereafter...
Same idiotic Mac-paranoia that Apple II users spewed for years. Some were spewing this while Apple was still introducing brand new Apple II series computers. Apple had stopped supporting the Apple II -- the fact that they were introducing new units, and new software, and operating systems and updates, etc, did not dissuade these people from the "fact" that Apple was trying to kill the Apple II. You see, the Apple II was making them too much money, thus making the Mac look bad. Apple was trying to kill the Apple II because it was making Apple too much money. Yes, that's an actual argument they'd spew. Really, you had to be there -- it was amazing the kind of illogical stuff these people would spew. That Apple IIgs you're talking about was part of the plot, of course. There are all kinds of ways they could have made it better, but didn't, because they were trying to kill the Apple II. They only introduced the Apple IIgs so people would see this crippled machine and buy a Mac instead. The Apple IIgs was a plot to sell Macs, and then Apple was faced with the embarrassing situation that the IIgs sold too well, too. Nothing annoys Apple more than making too much money, you see... XD
Gah... I had to listen to this crap for years... Eventually I bought a Mac, and you know how people say Mac users are like a cult? They're extremely sane and balanced people compared to the Apple II cult...:p
Ohh, so your post was a joke (and modded +3 Insightful), and the ACs a troll, not the other way around? Thanks for clearing that up.
lol... Sad that he had to clear up what's patently obvious. How many serious posts do you see that start out, "And lo,..."? Starting with a parody of biblical wording in Monty Python-esqe style is usually a good sign of less than fully serious intent. TIP: If it sounds like something Brother Maynard would say, it's probably intended as a joke, whether you think it's funny or not...
Just out of curiosity, were you thinking of moving the moon to geosynchronous orbit, making a cable strong enough to hold up while flinging the moon around in a higher orbit once every 24 hours, or slowing the earth's rotation to once every 29.53 (current) days?
What would happen if someone were to ram a plane into the cable?
Even if it wouldn't snap it, it would make it move, would it not? What would happen then?
Assuming it wouldn't snap, not much. Think about it. What do you think applies more force to the cable: a 747, or a 2 mph increase of wind velocity along a cable that stretches from ground into orbit? The extra energy imparted by the 747 is minuscule compared to the forces already acting on the thing continuously. The 747 is only a danger because all the force is being applied at one point. No snap, no problem...
Cape Canaveral is easy to defend. It's on the ground. This is a vertical structure that goes all the way up into space. To be completely safe, we'd have to enforce a very wide no-fly zone around it.
So, you're of the opinion that it's easier for terrorists to attack a target located at 50,000 ft than one on the ground? o.O
There's no way to make either target completely safe. However, between the two, the elevator would be easier to make safer. Among other things, it's a lot easier to identify potential threats to a structure in the middle of nowhere than one in central Florida. Your no fly zone would be a heck of at lot easier to establish and enforce there, if it was deemed necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
'nuff said.
The summary makes it sound like they actually proved that dark matter exist, not simply added to the inference of it's existence :(
Science is not in the business of making provable claims. It's impossible to prove anything using the scientific method. Science makes falsifiable claims, and any experiment that fails to falsify them confirms the theory, but most certainly does not prove it. An experiment that "confirms" a theory is one that produces a result compatible with that theory under circumstances where a different result would have falsified it. Confirmation merely strengthens a theory, it cannot ever prove it.
Dictionary: confirm
1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify.
2. To make firmer; strengthen
See definition 2. Incidentally, in science, "confirm" always means 2. Certainty is impossible to establish using the scientific method. An experiment that produces the expected result confirms the theory, but certainly does not prove it.
The online presence becomes "real" when the owner must be found for legal purposes. ...
To quote Vulcan metaphysics: nothing unreal exists.
An online presence becomes real the moment it is created.
Actually, it just means the test must be administered by a local. It needs to be calibrated for the local sensibilities and responses judged likewise. Someone from the area could probably use the test to good effect, and have the same experience with abject failure when visiting MA.
that the FCC is corrupt. Colin Powell's son was the head of it for a while, only because of his Dad's connections.
Okay. Do you have any evidence or reason to think Michael Powell was corrupt? The way you just stated that, it makes it sound like you think he's corrupt for no other reason than who his relatives are, which is just plain stupid...
That's interesting. I guess they will have to find a shooting star collector if there is such a thing. I though these kind of disasters made people sick and caused serious unbalance if the meteor is big enough to screw with the balance of where it hits, the people of the town and the person that owned the building probably don't think of it as a blessing though at least not yet if what you are saying will happen that someone would actually pay money for it. I guess I am a cynic, I could see geologists studying it, not buying it.
There's a good market for them on eBay. Of course, unless it's an extremely large or rate meteorite, despite with GP said, it's unlike to be worth more than the property damage. Typical meteorites look to be going from around $10-50. The fact of the matter is, meteorites aren't very rare. OTOH, there's one current bid up to over $15 million right now. eBay search
Can it precisely define the size of Uranus?
<sigh> Poor Uranus. People who can't pronounce your name correctly are constantly making butt jokes about you, whereas those who can pronounce your name correctly are constantly making pee jokes about you...
If your data is not in your possession, how do you know others won't see it or edit it without your permission?
It's called a lack of clinical paranoia, combined with the fact that I'm not the president, a CIA agent, or anyone else of importance. I could post my data publicly on a website and count on the fact that no one would see it, much less make any attempt to edit it.
There are people who have to worry about the kinds of issues you raise. But for every one of them, there are hundreds of people who are concerned about those things due to some delusional state, not sure of it's paranoia or delusions of grandeur.
Likewise, I don't need triple-DES for my encrypted data when no one would even bother with the effort to run it through rot13...
By this time next year, "portability" will have become a piss-poor excuse excuse for piracy.
However, "rights management" will still be a piss-poor euphemism for denying consumers their rights.
On the other hand, nobody can beat Debian's huge software repository.
I had to switch an older machine from Debian to Slackware a few years ago because of the huge software repository. apt stopped being usable due to requiring too much memory. Now, I could manually download and install the dpkg files I suppose, but once I could no longer simply apt-get update/upgrade, it didn't seem to make much sense to keep using Debian. The way Debian packages things assumes apt -- they break things down more and expect dependency resolution, which is exactly what they should do, but it makes it a pain to try to use if you can't use apt. Moving to Slackware was easier...
All the silliness about binary drivers aside, we're talking about a VERY common video chipset here, and honestly, the vast majority of video cards in the world come from a very short list of manufacturers who only release closed binaries. It's time to start being a little more realistic about making sure the upgrade processes account for that.
No no, ideology trumps practicality. If you want things the other way around, you'll have to pay for it.
I have no problem with an OS designed around a particular ideology. I have a problem when it doesn't just promote it but insists upon it. "If you (some company) don't do it the way we think you should, we'll make sure someone else (innocent end-users) are made to suffer for it!" Yeah, that's really effective. Way to stick it to 'em!
The thing is from what I can tell this is a Gnome "Feature" to hide complexities.
Oh yeah... I remember why I stopped using desktop Linux now. The Gnome developers did everything in their power to make it damn near impossible to use, while paradoxically claiming this was being done to make it easier. They had done it wrong on the previous versions (with an expert "level" that you had to choose globally to see the occasional advanced configuration detail you only occasionally needed to tweak), then they "corrected" this by removing all such configuration options entirely except through using a RegEdit-type interface (RegEdit for Linux! Let's take the worst feature of Windows and port that!). All the while ignoring the obvious solution of an "Advanced..." button to keep those options available but out of the way most of the time.
I gave up when I realized the "UI experts" just didn't have a frakkin' clue, save that if it was a solution that worked in a certain other popular OS, it ought to be avoided here, even in those cases where it made sense. Except for the RegEdit thing, of course -- that apparently they thought that, of all things, was a good idea to steal... I don't see how this can be explained without invoking "brain damage" in the explanation somehow...
I love Linux, but Gnome is pure comedy...
It may be better these days, I dunno. I stopped using Linux on the desktop in 2005. Still use it every day, but I ssh to it from machines with decent desktop OS's...
You got out at the right time. 8 was even worse, and 9 was terrible. They eventually drove me to Gentoo, and by its 3rd or 4th version Ubuntu won me over.
But hey, at least some of those earlier Mandrake releases were better than Red Hat was at the time. It had that going for it. Hell, I'd say 7 and maybe even 8 were still better than their analogous Red Hat releases.
Unfortunately, that was the main thing they had going for them, and they abandoned it. When I started using Mandrake (5.1 IIRC), it tracked Red Hat release for release, being an enhanced Red Hat. It took each Red Hat release and fixed everything wrong with it. I loved it and happily switch from Red Hat. It stopped tracking things quite so closely with 6.0, but it was still decent. I installed 7.0 and switched to Debian shortly thereafter...
Given what he's trying to do here, I would say your if clause is false.
What are you talking about?
Same idiotic Mac-paranoia that Apple II users spewed for years. Some were spewing this while Apple was still introducing brand new Apple II series computers. Apple had stopped supporting the Apple II -- the fact that they were introducing new units, and new software, and operating systems and updates, etc, did not dissuade these people from the "fact" that Apple was trying to kill the Apple II. You see, the Apple II was making them too much money, thus making the Mac look bad. Apple was trying to kill the Apple II because it was making Apple too much money. Yes, that's an actual argument they'd spew. Really, you had to be there -- it was amazing the kind of illogical stuff these people would spew. That Apple IIgs you're talking about was part of the plot, of course. There are all kinds of ways they could have made it better, but didn't, because they were trying to kill the Apple II. They only introduced the Apple IIgs so people would see this crippled machine and buy a Mac instead. The Apple IIgs was a plot to sell Macs, and then Apple was faced with the embarrassing situation that the IIgs sold too well, too. Nothing annoys Apple more than making too much money, you see... XD
Gah... I had to listen to this crap for years... Eventually I bought a Mac, and you know how people say Mac users are like a cult? They're extremely sane and balanced people compared to the Apple II cult... :p
Ohh, so your post was a joke (and modded +3 Insightful), and the ACs a troll, not the other way around? Thanks for clearing that up.
lol... Sad that he had to clear up what's patently obvious. How many serious posts do you see that start out, "And lo, ..."? Starting with a parody of biblical wording in Monty Python-esqe style is usually a good sign of less than fully serious intent. TIP: If it sounds like something Brother Maynard would say, it's probably intended as a joke, whether you think it's funny or not...
He's just trying to get you to look at his leet userID
Not impressed... :p
Can somebody please explain this with a car analogy instead?
Black holes form by accreting matter, much like an accident on the Autobahn.
You are better off using a battery and replacing it when you die.
So... I need to put "replace the battery" in my will?
I expect to see a space elevator built in my lifetime.
Of course, I plan on living forever. XD
I don't think our current economic principals allow us to work on projects of this magnitude.
Are you sure? We can cut a 700 billion dollar check in a heartbeat if our financial sector is in danger.
We can make the investment if we want to, the problem is that we lack the will, not the resources.
Link that actually works.
O.O
Just out of curiosity, were you thinking of moving the moon to geosynchronous orbit, making a cable strong enough to hold up while flinging the moon around in a higher orbit once every 24 hours, or slowing the earth's rotation to once every 29.53 (current) days?
What would happen if someone were to ram a plane into the cable?
Even if it wouldn't snap it, it would make it move, would it not? What would happen then?
Assuming it wouldn't snap, not much. Think about it. What do you think applies more force to the cable: a 747, or a 2 mph increase of wind velocity along a cable that stretches from ground into orbit? The extra energy imparted by the 747 is minuscule compared to the forces already acting on the thing continuously. The 747 is only a danger because all the force is being applied at one point. No snap, no problem...
Cape Canaveral is easy to defend. It's on the ground. This is a vertical structure that goes all the way up into space. To be completely safe, we'd have to enforce a very wide no-fly zone around it.
So, you're of the opinion that it's easier for terrorists to attack a target located at 50,000 ft than one on the ground? o.O
There's no way to make either target completely safe. However, between the two, the elevator would be easier to make safer. Among other things, it's a lot easier to identify potential threats to a structure in the middle of nowhere than one in central Florida. Your no fly zone would be a heck of at lot easier to establish and enforce there, if it was deemed necessary.