Kind of cool I guess, though not really suitable for 'flight logging" from a pilot perspective. More like a cool piece of social media stuff. Still, for people who use social media, I guess it's cool.
I was thinking much the same thing... this kind of visualization isn't exactly new or news. I mean, if it were tracking scientists flying to a conference, or medical/rescue people flying to an outbreak or a disaster... it might be interesting. But J. Random Dude flying about, without even being given the reason he was flying about (vacation? business? what business?), not so much. And the seventeen different ways the poster discovered the obvious (the airports nearest his friend's homes and those in the countries he's lived in see the most travel by his friend) is especially obnoxious.
I guess it made the front page of Slashdot because it involves an 'open'(ish) kinda, sorta social media site
From the questions you asked, that's not immediately obvious. In fact, from the questions you asked you appeared to be completely ignorant of the topic.
"Look it up" is the classic defense of a sectarian, not a scientist.
Had I been defending something, you'd have a point. What I was doing was answering your questions - something to which "here's the relevant links" is a completely valid answer. But it looks like you're not interested in answers.
. Taking into account the crystallization age (1.3 Gyr), it becomes very difficult to satisfy all these requirements for the case of Mars
Anyone actually familiar with science knows that difficult is not a synonym for impossible. - even though ignorant jackasses try mightily to make it so.
tl;dr : it is not at all certain that the SNC meteors came from Mars as there are phenomena that do not support this thesis. Another thesis is that they came from earth ejecta, and the observed data actually fits this model very well.
tl;dr transation: "It's completely certain that I (Celarent) am an ignorant jackass who is highly selective about what I'll read and believe".
thank you for your snide remarks
Not a problem - you deserved them in spades for ignorance above and beyond the call.
Yes, I agree. James Lovelock pretty much told NASA why there was no life there back in the 1960's. No need to look for it as it isn't there. Sound, simple principles behind him saying that. Funny, how this fictional idea that there was life on Mars, along with some wishful thinking (I am looking at you Percival Lowell) can get lodged in the minds of so many people. And lead to billions spent on that faulty idea.
That's like claiming we should still believe the scientists mentioned by the grandparent who predicted Venus would be a tropical paradise. I.E. you're suggesting we should believe a theory from half a century ago - and discard all the evidence accumulated since.
People seem to forget that after its formation the sun was somewhat LESS bright than it is now so Mars would have been even colder in its current orbit. If there ever was large amounts of water on Mars I suspect that it would have spent most of its time locked up as ice sheets with the occasional melting due to impacts. Pretty much the way it is today.
Insolation is only one part of the equation. While the sun may have been less bright, the Martian atmosphere would have been much, much thicker - more than offsetting the reduced insolation. Your suspicion also fails to jibe with the available scientific evidence, which shows Mars wasn't always pretty much the way it is today and that there were once considerable quantities of free flowing water for a long period.
All this warm wet life on mars stuff strikes me as nothing more than wish fulfillment - the same way people used to imagine Venus was a tropical paradise. Until the probes went there and proved those predictions to be some of the worst ever made in astronomical science.
You've been misled by decades of bad popular science history and over worshipful space program history. By the early 50's, evidence was already accumulating that Venus was almost certainly much hotter than had previously been theorized. But the scientists of the era that thought Venus was a "tropical paradise" were working with the best information they had. (Unlike you.)
. If Mars at any time had this amount of water and a thicker atmosphere there would likely be less craters
No, craters of the size in the images would be caused by bodies big enough that they wouldn't even notice an atmosphere.
those that did remain would probably have different shapes due to erosion
No, not really. You can't erode something circular into something that's not circular - that's why we can find impact craters on Earth that are millions of years old.
Funny that you can find a link to something that implies the claim is false... but that you can't be bothered to google on "martian meteorite"... and if you did do so, you'd see one of the related searches is "how do martian meteorites get to earth".
Skepticism is useful, but get off your dead ass and be an informed skeptic rather than an ignoramus.
If your form of nerdhood is something tinkerable, sure. Otherwise, not so much.
But we also pride ourselves on using the best tool for the job.
Actually, most tool using nerds I know of are either; a) stuck on one tool, regardless of it's utility (or tend to seek out only jobs that tool fits), or b) concerned mostly about using the latest and l33test tool(s) applicable to their field of nerdom.
I think he's trying to say that by suing this guy, he'll never be able to own a 1960 Batmobile. Which is ruining his childhood (but maybe you did undestand that, and I'm not understanding why you're upset).
No, I didn't understand that - hence my question. How, exactly, is his childhood "ruined" because he can't have a shiny thing?
I want a Batmobile, but I do think maybe it should be be able to be copyrighted. I'm really torn on this one. I don't agree with copyright law, but I think this one may be a good one.
I'm not torn at all - the law (across the whole spectrum... whether copyright, patent (invention or design), trademark, civil, or criminal) is pretty much consistent across the board and pretty clear... With very few (and mostly reasonable) exceptions you can't take other peoples stuff let alone profit from it. I have never understood the frame of mind it takes to believe that it *is* ok.
If -- and it's a big if, total hypothetical here, but if -- a dictatorship took power in the U.S. and an armed resistance composed of armed citizens opposed it, the experience of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the example of resistance groups in Nazi-occupied areas during WWII suggests that a resistance force armed with rifles (even ones not capable of fully automatic fire) could put up significant resistance
That's the theory... and when I was much younger, I even believed it. Then I grew up and studied history (the real stuff, not the watered down version you get in school), and I no longer believed it. Why? Because actually studying history showed that the groups that were actually "successful" (I.E. propaganda success and "victory", but not actual military success) had extensive outside support - in materiel, in planning, in communications, in operations... They weren't armed citizens, they were elements of a proper armed force, lacking only uniforms and boot camp. Without that support, while they were a PITA, they were ultimately unsuccessful.
With few exceptions in the modern era, it's planning, communications, and logistics that wins wars and unseats dictators. (The tacit or implicit support and cooperation of a large segment of the populace doesn't hurt either.)
Hell, look at how much trouble the Branch Davidians gave the feds, and they were a bunch of frickin' nutcases.
The Branch Davidians were only "trouble" so long as the feds showed restraint in the use of force. Once the gloves came off, it was all over in fifteen minutes. They never stood a chance.
Armed groups played a key role in winning civil rights for African-Americans during the 1960s, both by standing up directly against racist cops and by defending black citizens against violence when the police would not respond.
Those rights were already won - on the legislative level. Those armed groups may have played a minor role in enforcing those rights, but they didn't "win" them. Again, study history.
Wrapping the ship in water frozen or not, is a far more practical protection measure than wrapping it in lead.
If by 'far more practical' you mean "still, not very practical at all"... then, sure.
If you need six feet of something dense (and thus very heavy) to provide sufficient shielding, replacing it with sixty feet of something less dense isn't going to help your engineering any. It's still bulky and heavy, and even at UPS prices (which are orders of magnitude cheaper per/lb than even the most drug addled space fanboi imagines to be possible) pretty much cost prohibitive.
...and your total lack of an argument is just so convincing.
Arguing with the original poster would be like arguing with someone who is claiming that the sun rises in the west and sets in the north. It's just not possible to argue with someone (like him, or yourself) that disconnected from reality.
If you are willing to ruin someone's life over a 30 year old pop song
*yawn* You don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.
. Laurel and Hardy used to be on every Christmas when I was a child. I haven't seen any of their films now for a long long time. Probably they're all sitting in a vault somewhere turning to dust.
Checking "find TV shows" on my Tivo... I find three showings of Laurel and Hardy on a local channel in the next two weeks. (Which is all the further Tivo caches schedule information.)
Checking Netflix, there's a whole raftload of Laurel & Hardy, both streaming and DVD's. Hulu has ten episodes. Amazon Live Video shows a stack of movies available as well. iTunes has two dozen or more movies, plus music.
So no, Laurel and Hardy aren't sitting in a vault - you either have sucky local channels, or fail massively at basic media searching.
Less well known among Slashdotters, in fact among anyone who isn't a serious historian, is the enormous amount of work that wasn't cryptography. There's Huff-Duff. There's the enormous amount of what would be called data-mining today - the cataloging and indexing of all that data so it could be correlated and compared. There's all of the operational research based on that correlation and those comparisons. There's tons of weapons and tactical development based on that research...
The cryptographers were only the tip of a very, very big iceberg. And sometimes... I think they get an unfair share of the credit. Without all those others turning cryptographic intelligence into something the guys on the pointy end could use... there wouldn't have been any point. Abstract data decrypted days or weeks later is cool, but it's ordinance on target that wins wars.
After all, their current-gen Soyuz capsule and R-7 rocket were designed in the 1950's (by their legendary Chief Designer Korolev)
The current generation Soyuz (capsule) only dates from 2010 - and bears very little relationship (beyond a a general moldline) with the first Soyuz design... from 1963. The current version Soyuz (booster) only dates from 2001 - and like the capsule, has evolved considerably across the decades.
If the Russians built game consoles, they'd still be running Super NES.
It might look like a Super NES, but it would have the guts of Nintendo 64.
Seriously, the Russian space program has a lot of problems, but flying sixty year old designs isn't one of them. They've kept the name and the general appearance, but don't be fooled by these surface similarities.
Given that the lakes have not only been isolated from the rest of the terrestrial environment for eons, and from each other... no, it's not a minor outrage. It's good science to see how evolution has proceeded in each and how they are different from one another.
Don't mistake the media's preoccupation with "firsts" for the reasons behind the drilling.
I've lost count of how many "next generation" the Russians have announced as being "practically ready" or terms amounting to the same thing.
Not to mention the article is silent on whether this is actually a new design or a new iteration of the Soyuz. If it's the former, then we're likely looking at yet more Russian vaporware. The latter actually might come to pass.
Same thing with the argument about fixed vs marginal costs for the program as a whole. It's a logical fallacy to say "it doesn't really cost $500 million per launch, because most of it is fixed". OH YES IT DOES cost $500 million per launch, because the alternative is shutting the program down and slashing those fixed costs to zero.
In your haste and ignorance, you fail to realize the existence of a third alternative - to fly *more* per year and amortize the fixed costs over a larger number of flights and thus reduce the annual cost per flight.
It's like you built a billion dollar factor that you can only use to build two cars at $0 marginal cost each. It doesn't matter that the marginal cost is zero because you're stuck at only building two cars. And you're certainly not going to be stupid enough to build less than two. So those two cars really do, in fact, cost $500 million each (average cost)... not $0 each (marginal cost).
No shit Sherlock, that's Accounting 101. And what's the usual response of a business that builds a billion dollar factory? They use that factory to build as many units as possible in order to amortize the costs across as many units as possible. That's why the terms "annual cost" and "marginal cost" exist in the first place - to analyze the true costs per widget (or per flight in this case).
So yes, you're ignorant. You don't have a clue what a logical fallacy is and you're completely ignorant of accounting and how it works.
For example, much of the water the Shuttle delivered was a byproduct of it's fuel cells and was thus essentially free.
As long as you ignore the billion dollar cost of launching the Shuttle each time, anyway.
If the cost was relevant, you'd have a point. But in your haste to make a smart ass comment (and thus expose your ignorance) you ignore than fact that the Shuttle was going to the ISS (in this example) anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking much the same thing... this kind of visualization isn't exactly new or news. I mean, if it were tracking scientists flying to a conference, or medical/rescue people flying to an outbreak or a disaster... it might be interesting. But J. Random Dude flying about, without even being given the reason he was flying about (vacation? business? what business?), not so much. And the seventeen different ways the poster discovered the obvious (the airports nearest his friend's homes and those in the countries he's lived in see the most travel by his friend) is especially obnoxious.
I guess it made the front page of Slashdot because it involves an 'open'(ish) kinda, sorta social media site
From the questions you asked, that's not immediately obvious. In fact, from the questions you asked you appeared to be completely ignorant of the topic.
Had I been defending something, you'd have a point. What I was doing was answering your questions - something to which "here's the relevant links" is a completely valid answer. But it looks like you're not interested in answers.
Anyone actually familiar with science knows that difficult is not a synonym for impossible. - even though ignorant jackasses try mightily to make it so.
tl;dr transation: "It's completely certain that I (Celarent) am an ignorant jackass who is highly selective about what I'll read and believe".
Not a problem - you deserved them in spades for ignorance above and beyond the call.
That's like claiming we should still believe the scientists mentioned by the grandparent who predicted Venus would be a tropical paradise. I.E. you're suggesting we should believe a theory from half a century ago - and discard all the evidence accumulated since.
Insolation is only one part of the equation. While the sun may have been less bright, the Martian atmosphere would have been much, much thicker - more than offsetting the reduced insolation. Your suspicion also fails to jibe with the available scientific evidence, which shows Mars wasn't always pretty much the way it is today and that there were once considerable quantities of free flowing water for a long period.
You've been misled by decades of bad popular science history and over worshipful space program history. By the early 50's, evidence was already accumulating that Venus was almost certainly much hotter than had previously been theorized. But the scientists of the era that thought Venus was a "tropical paradise" were working with the best information they had. (Unlike you.)
No, craters of the size in the images would be caused by bodies big enough that they wouldn't even notice an atmosphere.
No, not really. You can't erode something circular into something that's not circular - that's why we can find impact craters on Earth that are millions of years old.
Funny that you can find a link to something that implies the claim is false... but that you can't be bothered to google on "martian meteorite"... and if you did do so, you'd see one of the related searches is "how do martian meteorites get to earth".
Skepticism is useful, but get off your dead ass and be an informed skeptic rather than an ignoramus.
If your form of nerdhood is something tinkerable, sure. Otherwise, not so much.
Actually, most tool using nerds I know of are either; a) stuck on one tool, regardless of it's utility (or tend to seek out only jobs that tool fits), or b) concerned mostly about using the latest and l33test tool(s) applicable to their field of nerdom.
No, I didn't understand that - hence my question. How, exactly, is his childhood "ruined" because he can't have a shiny thing?
I'm not torn at all - the law (across the whole spectrum... whether copyright, patent (invention or design), trademark, civil, or criminal) is pretty much consistent across the board and pretty clear... With very few (and mostly reasonable) exceptions you can't take other peoples stuff let alone profit from it. I have never understood the frame of mind it takes to believe that it *is* ok.
And people wonder why Hollywood sticks with sequels, prequels, re-makes, and re-imaginings. They shouldn't - it's where the money is.
"They"? Every gun owner? I think not.
That's the theory... and when I was much younger, I even believed it. Then I grew up and studied history (the real stuff, not the watered down version you get in school), and I no longer believed it. Why? Because actually studying history showed that the groups that were actually "successful" (I.E. propaganda success and "victory", but not actual military success) had extensive outside support - in materiel, in planning, in communications, in operations... They weren't armed citizens, they were elements of a proper armed force, lacking only uniforms and boot camp. Without that support, while they were a PITA, they were ultimately unsuccessful.
With few exceptions in the modern era, it's planning, communications, and logistics that wins wars and unseats dictators. (The tacit or implicit support and cooperation of a large segment of the populace doesn't hurt either.)
The Branch Davidians were only "trouble" so long as the feds showed restraint in the use of force. Once the gloves came off, it was all over in fifteen minutes. They never stood a chance.
Those rights were already won - on the legislative level. Those armed groups may have played a minor role in enforcing those rights, but they didn't "win" them. Again, study history.
if your childhood isn't over, how exactly is your childhood ruined because you can't have everything your greedy little heart desires?
If by 'far more practical' you mean "still, not very practical at all"... then, sure.
If you need six feet of something dense (and thus very heavy) to provide sufficient shielding, replacing it with sixty feet of something less dense isn't going to help your engineering any. It's still bulky and heavy, and even at UPS prices (which are orders of magnitude cheaper per/lb than even the most drug addled space fanboi imagines to be possible) pretty much cost prohibitive.
Arguing with the original poster would be like arguing with someone who is claiming that the sun rises in the west and sets in the north. It's just not possible to argue with someone (like him, or yourself) that disconnected from reality.
*yawn* You don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.
Translation: "I made shit up, and was caught at it".
Checking "find TV shows" on my Tivo... I find three showings of Laurel and Hardy on a local channel in the next two weeks. (Which is all the further Tivo caches schedule information.)
Checking Netflix, there's a whole raftload of Laurel & Hardy, both streaming and DVD's. Hulu has ten episodes. Amazon Live Video shows a stack of movies available as well. iTunes has two dozen or more movies, plus music.
So no, Laurel and Hardy aren't sitting in a vault - you either have sucky local channels, or fail massively at basic media searching.
Let's just say... you don't really understand how houses and real property are treated under the law.
The problem "global", is that you're making the same mistake by extrapolating from your "personal experience" to the whole movement.
Less well known among Slashdotters, in fact among anyone who isn't a serious historian, is the enormous amount of work that wasn't cryptography. There's Huff-Duff. There's the enormous amount of what would be called data-mining today - the cataloging and indexing of all that data so it could be correlated and compared. There's all of the operational research based on that correlation and those comparisons. There's tons of weapons and tactical development based on that research...
The cryptographers were only the tip of a very, very big iceberg. And sometimes... I think they get an unfair share of the credit. Without all those others turning cryptographic intelligence into something the guys on the pointy end could use... there wouldn't have been any point. Abstract data decrypted days or weeks later is cool, but it's ordinance on target that wins wars.
The current generation Soyuz (capsule) only dates from 2010 - and bears very little relationship (beyond a a general moldline) with the first Soyuz design... from 1963. The current version Soyuz (booster) only dates from 2001 - and like the capsule, has evolved considerably across the decades.
It might look like a Super NES, but it would have the guts of Nintendo 64.
Seriously, the Russian space program has a lot of problems, but flying sixty year old designs isn't one of them. They've kept the name and the general appearance, but don't be fooled by these surface similarities.
Given that the lakes have not only been isolated from the rest of the terrestrial environment for eons, and from each other... no, it's not a minor outrage. It's good science to see how evolution has proceeded in each and how they are different from one another.
Don't mistake the media's preoccupation with "firsts" for the reasons behind the drilling.
I've lost count of how many "next generation" the Russians have announced as being "practically ready" or terms amounting to the same thing.
Not to mention the article is silent on whether this is actually a new design or a new iteration of the Soyuz. If it's the former, then we're likely looking at yet more Russian vaporware. The latter actually might come to pass.
In your haste and ignorance, you fail to realize the existence of a third alternative - to fly *more* per year and amortize the fixed costs over a larger number of flights and thus reduce the annual cost per flight.
No shit Sherlock, that's Accounting 101. And what's the usual response of a business that builds a billion dollar factory? They use that factory to build as many units as possible in order to amortize the costs across as many units as possible. That's why the terms "annual cost" and "marginal cost" exist in the first place - to analyze the true costs per widget (or per flight in this case).
So yes, you're ignorant. You don't have a clue what a logical fallacy is and you're completely ignorant of accounting and how it works.
If the cost was relevant, you'd have a point. But in your haste to make a smart ass comment (and thus expose your ignorance) you ignore than fact that the Shuttle was going to the ISS (in this example) anyways.
When I make a ridiculous claim, get back to me.
But you don't have the requisite background knowledge to recognize a ridiculous claim in the first place.