You can do the same thing to submarines too, if you know what they sound like. The submarine's sound becomes the "reference star" in this case. When you receive the garbled signal, you might be able to correct it based on the sub's sound. If you apply that correction to the message as well, you might be able to hear the message.
I see a significant problem in using the sub's sonar signature as a baseline, it's sort of obvious actually. The boats are damn quiet. Or at least can and should be. Missle boats, the russian akula, and the Seawolf class are so quiet that the best way to look for them in the open ocean is to look for a "hole of no sound" where you think ambient ocean sound should be.
Any new format, to succeed needs to add value to the user to overcome the cost of changing over. With CDs, there was a marked increase of quality over vinyl. Some might argue it was a decrease, but Joe Sixpack is still glad his CDs dont pop and scratch. Further, the CD allowed instant track access at the push of a button. It was these two features which pushed the changeover to CDs, along with the gradually decreasing price of players and concurrent larger selection of CDs in stores.
That said, where are the additional values of this medium over CDs? It's small. neat. But if I have to give up my CD burner, small dont mean much.
The next medium is most likely to be some flavor of mp3 or ogg device, be it solid state or magnetic disc based. Give me the ability to carry all the music I've bought over the last 15 years in my pocket, and the ability to navigate easily among all the songs, and I'll be all over it.
Why call that assumption A? Let's just be honest and call Bob what he wants to be called.
To answer your question though, for something to be "scientific" it needs to be proveable or disproveable based on empirical evidence. Black holes are a theory which explains the associated empirical evidence. Hate to break it to you, but your ideas of an alternate version of the creation of life (as opposed to creation of the universe itself), will probably remain pseudo-science for the predictable future. Don't let me tell you it can't be done though, if you think you're right, try to figure out a way to gather evidence and test your hypothesis!
If the ends can never justify the means, what can?
If killing Bush would make our society freer, would I be justified in killing bush? The "means" like any other action must be weighed as ethical choices, being good or bad objectively and independently. Or rather, if there were larger circumstances to mitigate the "wrongness" of an action, say a soldier killing an enemy during wartime, you must begin first that the action is evil, then use the larger factors (there's a war going on) to justify the action. The burden of proof is on proving it is right, not the other way around.
"all the laws, but one, [are] to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
Lincoln's justification of his abrogation of rights during the civil war is just another manifestation of the tired ends-justify-the-means-argument. Unfortunately, not everyone would agree with his ends, and certainly not many would agree with the means. In breaking law to save the union, he ultimately set precedent to fundamentally change that which he sought to save.
Law, even in its happy-faced, kinder, gentler democratically accountable form, is force. If it were unnecessary to compel one to act in a certain way or to not act in a certain way, there would be no need for law. Similarly, if it were unnecessary to compel Afghanistan or Somalia or Serbia or Vietnam or Germany, or any of the countries against which we have waged war to act a certain way, there would be no need for war.
The use of force on the domestic public in the form of law during wartime is ultimately no different than the use of force during peacetime. It is simply stripped of all its warm, fuzzy clothing that make it palatable come election time. Try it for yourself. Go up to the treasury and ask for your share of the War on Drugs budget back and see what happends.
If God is omnipotent such that He can disregard all Laws, spiritual or physical, then why have His only begotten Son die? Why couldn't he wave his hand and make Justice disappear?
If you're wondering why he did it, I'd encourage you to reread Job, or to vastly summarize: Who the fuck are you to question why god does anything. He's god.
If you're saying why did he have to, then you're stuck in a contradiction. If he _HAD_ to do anything, he is no longer omnipotent, and thus you have to rethink your definition of god being omnipotent.
One of the *major* problems with discussing religion and science with anybody, is that just saying "I'm a Christian" doesn't come nearly close to defining what I believe.
Agreed. Just because you're catholic don't mean you think just like the pope, or just cause you're an asshole doesn't mean you think like Jerry Falwell. I'm not trying to attack what you believe. If it makes you happy, knock yourself out. I just found some interesting contradictions in your post and I thought I'd bring them to your attention. One of the interesting ones is the idea of a "Scientific Creationist." You may or may not be one, but the idea by itself is a contradiction. There is no science behind creationism. You could say that S.C.ism is an attempt to describe creationism scientifically, but if you've reached a conclusion (Creationism), then try to work backward with evidence supporting it, you're not working with the scientific method, and any "evidence" you may have is skewed by your bias.
You are granted a _hypothesis_ to work from, but only open mindedly that your evidence may prove or disprove your hypothesis. But if you've concluded that you believe the Creation myth by faith, you've checked your intellectual honesty at the door of these creation related scientific discussions.
So if there are lagrance pts between any two orbiting bodies, there could be L4 and L5 (Terra-Sol) and L4 and L5 (Terra-Luna) no? I was just wondering the effect of the third body on the system so that in the previous example, Sol's influence on the Terra-Luna points would be much larger than Luna's influence on the Terra Sol points. Maybe even Sol's influence would be so great as compared to Luna's that the Terra-Luna points would be insignificant. Am i on the right track here?
A question from the astronomically illiterate: The short google search i did on lagrange points all talked about points in the earth-sun system. Would it be possible to have lagrange points between the earth and the moon, or does the sun just fuck it up? Conversely, wouldn't the moon's revolution (around the earth, not in the Heinlein sense) move these points in a 3 body lagrange system?
We already had a great experiment in deurbanization called the suburb. Suddenly, Towns all over the country start to look more and more like orange county! No! Superficiality without the attractiveness! No! We must escape! To where? to the small towns! But wait, I won't be able to check my stocks and The Hun for natalie portman pr0n from there!
I've delved into the silly, but the point is serious. Keep your suburban, SUV-driving, mall-patronizing asses out of the in the damn suburbs where they belong.
When I was a kid, my Dad used to joke around by saying "Vere are your Pap-ahs? Vee haf vays of making you tak!"
Are you my long lost brother? I thought my dad was the only one who did that kind of shit. Is he also a tax-dodging libertarian about to go to jail because he owes $100,000 in back child support?
Trident II (D-5) Fleet Ballistic Missile will be delivered from Ohio class ("Crimson Tide" anyone?)
Actually, "crimson tide" USS alabama SSBN-731, is an older Trident that carries the C-4 missle. The newer, more potent D5's are carried by the newer Trident subs based in Georgia (Alabama's homeport is in Wash state).
I did indeed mean R. Lee Ermey as Sgt. "You Climb obstacles like old people fuck!" Hartman, USMC.
Color me corrected.
F. Lee Ermey, "Well...No Sh!t..."
on
GOVNET In the Works
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Apparently, the concept is to build a decentralized network so that government officials, academicians, and others can communicate with one another via a technology called "electronic mail." Planned but not yet implemented is a feature whereby entire files can be sent via this "Inter-network." Proponents of the decentralized model tout that communications could be routed around damage in such a network, even perhaps, a nuclear attack!
In business news, Cisco Systems stock [CSCO] rose 60% today.
Slashdot Mirror
so basically you're saying "Welcome young skywalker, I have been expecting you"
I poop on your face!
I see a significant problem in using the sub's sonar signature as a baseline, it's sort of obvious actually. The boats are damn quiet. Or at least can and should be. Missle boats, the russian akula, and the Seawolf class are so quiet that the best way to look for them in the open ocean is to look for a "hole of no sound" where you think ambient ocean sound should be.
Thank you Captain Obvious. Here's your cookie.
As an aside, amazingly enough, the only place where i've seen anything close to fair reporting on a parent compant was...*gasp* MSNBC
Thats like going to Landover Baptist looking for arguments for atheism.
After the FBI comes knocking at my door asking me why I always play T.
The master paused for a moment, held up his hand and said
"Natalie Portman"
At this moment, the zen student was enlightened.
Any new format, to succeed needs to add value to the user to overcome the cost of changing over. With CDs, there was a marked increase of quality over vinyl. Some might argue it was a decrease, but Joe Sixpack is still glad his CDs dont pop and scratch. Further, the CD allowed instant track access at the push of a button. It was these two features which pushed the changeover to CDs, along with the gradually decreasing price of players and concurrent larger selection of CDs in stores.
That said, where are the additional values of this medium over CDs? It's small. neat. But if I have to give up my CD burner, small dont mean much.
The next medium is most likely to be some flavor of mp3 or ogg device, be it solid state or magnetic disc based. Give me the ability to carry all the music I've bought over the last 15 years in my pocket, and the ability to navigate easily among all the songs, and I'll be all over it.
To answer your question though, for something to be "scientific" it needs to be proveable or disproveable based on empirical evidence. Black holes are a theory which explains the associated empirical evidence. Hate to break it to you, but your ideas of an alternate version of the creation of life (as opposed to creation of the universe itself), will probably remain pseudo-science for the predictable future. Don't let me tell you it can't be done though, if you think you're right, try to figure out a way to gather evidence and test your hypothesis!
If killing Bush would make our society freer, would I be justified in killing bush? The "means" like any other action must be weighed as ethical choices, being good or bad objectively and independently. Or rather, if there were larger circumstances to mitigate the "wrongness" of an action, say a soldier killing an enemy during wartime, you must begin first that the action is evil, then use the larger factors (there's a war going on) to justify the action. The burden of proof is on proving it is right, not the other way around.
Lincoln's justification of his abrogation of rights during the civil war is just another manifestation of the tired ends-justify-the-means-argument. Unfortunately, not everyone would agree with his ends, and certainly not many would agree with the means. In breaking law to save the union, he ultimately set precedent to fundamentally change that which he sought to save.
Law, even in its happy-faced, kinder, gentler democratically accountable form, is force. If it were unnecessary to compel one to act in a certain way or to not act in a certain way, there would be no need for law. Similarly, if it were unnecessary to compel Afghanistan or Somalia or Serbia or Vietnam or Germany, or any of the countries against which we have waged war to act a certain way, there would be no need for war.
The use of force on the domestic public in the form of law during wartime is ultimately no different than the use of force during peacetime. It is simply stripped of all its warm, fuzzy clothing that make it palatable come election time. Try it for yourself. Go up to the treasury and ask for your share of the War on Drugs budget back and see what happends.
>End Anarchist Rant
If you're wondering why he did it, I'd encourage you to reread Job, or to vastly summarize: Who the fuck are you to question why god does anything. He's god.
If you're saying why did he have to, then you're stuck in a contradiction. If he _HAD_ to do anything, he is no longer omnipotent, and thus you have to rethink your definition of god being omnipotent.
One of the *major* problems with discussing religion and science with anybody, is that just saying "I'm a Christian" doesn't come nearly close to defining what I believe.
Agreed. Just because you're catholic don't mean you think just like the pope, or just cause you're an asshole doesn't mean you think like Jerry Falwell. I'm not trying to attack what you believe. If it makes you happy, knock yourself out. I just found some interesting contradictions in your post and I thought I'd bring them to your attention. One of the interesting ones is the idea of a "Scientific Creationist." You may or may not be one, but the idea by itself is a contradiction. There is no science behind creationism. You could say that S.C.ism is an attempt to describe creationism scientifically, but if you've reached a conclusion (Creationism), then try to work backward with evidence supporting it, you're not working with the scientific method, and any "evidence" you may have is skewed by your bias.
You are granted a _hypothesis_ to work from, but only open mindedly that your evidence may prove or disprove your hypothesis. But if you've concluded that you believe the Creation myth by faith, you've checked your intellectual honesty at the door of these creation related scientific discussions.
Shall I bother introducing you to the contradiction of an omnipotent God being bound by anything? "What does God need with a starship?"
I think you're just an agnostic who's still in the closet.
So if there are lagrance pts between any two orbiting bodies, there could be L4 and L5 (Terra-Sol) and L4 and L5 (Terra-Luna) no? I was just wondering the effect of the third body on the system so that in the previous example, Sol's influence on the Terra-Luna points would be much larger than Luna's influence on the Terra Sol points. Maybe even Sol's influence would be so great as compared to Luna's that the Terra-Luna points would be insignificant. Am i on the right track here?
A question from the astronomically illiterate: The short google search i did on lagrange points all talked about points in the earth-sun system. Would it be possible to have lagrange points between the earth and the moon, or does the sun just fuck it up? Conversely, wouldn't the moon's revolution (around the earth, not in the Heinlein sense) move these points in a 3 body lagrange system?
aaahh...eerrr..
Note to self, Reading Wired and 2600 does NOT impress the babes (or really anyone else). Maybe I should take the Tao of Steve approach.
We already had a great experiment in deurbanization called the suburb. Suddenly, Towns all over the country start to look more and more like orange county! No! Superficiality without the attractiveness! No! We must escape! To where? to the small towns! But wait, I won't be able to check my stocks and The Hun for natalie portman pr0n from there!
I've delved into the silly, but the point is serious. Keep your suburban, SUV-driving, mall-patronizing asses out of the in the damn suburbs where they belong.
Are you my long lost brother? I thought my dad was the only one who did that kind of shit. Is he also a tax-dodging libertarian about to go to jail because he owes $100,000 in back child support?
Ok, maybe the similiarity ends there.
I'll to get some to entertain my *inflate* *inflate* girlfriend..
You mean small flying debris, like loose 1x3 Lego Blocks?
Actually, "crimson tide" USS alabama SSBN-731, is an older Trident that carries the C-4 missle. The newer, more potent D5's are carried by the newer Trident subs based in Georgia (Alabama's homeport is in Wash state).
Color me corrected.
In business news, Cisco Systems stock [CSCO] rose 60% today.
Thank god for USA Today: America's Pravda