you have confronted me with facts. i agree with every fact you've told me. that's not the point
Each and every one of my facts bears on your hypothesis as to the distribution of stellar types. Every scientific, pseudo scientific, mathematical, and pseudo mathematical claim you have made has been rebutted with facts.
So what then *is* the point?
i am doubting your social ability to stay within the scope of a given topic
Prior to calling you a troll, I have stayed narrowly within the scope of the topic - which is your hypothesis of the likely distribution of stellar types. Whether you choose to believe it or not - these things *are* connected, and I've abundantly, politely, and repeatedly demonstrated the connection. You claim to believe be, but you act as if you don't.
This question has lingered in the back of my mind for many years. How do we know there aren't 10^(some huge fucking number) planet-sized objects just floating out there in interstellar space?
Actually something like that very question has been asked...
Back when we first started to get a handle on galactic evolution, somebody noticed that the amount of visible (luminous, that is visible to telescopes, radio telescopes, etc..) matter in galaxies was not enough to account to the visible effects of gravity on galaxies. One of the first hypotheses they though of was that there must be a lot of invisible (non luminous) matter floating around - then somebody calculated that the amount of invisible (non luminous) matter required would in fact *be* visible, because it would obscure the stars.
So while there may be such bodies, the lack of observed gravitational effects, that they've never been observed to occult any stars under observation, and that none appear visible by the reflected light of out own Sun, gives an upper bound to how many there are likely to be. Further studies of the Oort cloud and the Scattered disk could refine that estimate, because if they exist they'll perturb the objects in those belts as they pass by.
Typical troll response - confronted with facts, you run screaming for the hills. I've addressed your simple point again and again, but you lack the wit to comprehend it.
I thought it made it quite clear why I keep talking about galaxies - because they effect local conditions. Local conditions effect what kinds of stars are born and when they are born. What kinds of stars are born and when they are born (and thus how and when they die) affect subsequent populations of stars - and thus the planetary systems that form alongside those subsequent stars.
take a count of the largest stars. then just the large stars. the medium sized... you are increasing in number, right?
Are they increasing in number? Where's your evidence?
you are at the front of a gaussian curve. now the numbers start falling as you get smaller and smaller. you have a curve with a rapid drop off on the smaller side. my hypothesis is simply that this is artificial because we simply can't see the dimmer and totally dark systems out there
Before you can extrapolate the existence of the hand side of the curve, first you must demonstrate the existence of the right side you're extrapolating from.
On top of that you must account for the fact that a star's size varies over time. The stars we see *now* (in type and location) are not the stars we would see if we traveled back 10 billion years, nor are they the stars we'd see if we traveled forward 10 billion years. In the same way, you can't extrapolate the relative position and population of LA and Seattle a million years ago and a million years hence from their current positions and population - you need much deeper knowledge to do that.
For an example of that deeper knowledge, and why your method of taking a census of the stars visible today won't work - consider our own Sun. Our own Sun is a yellow dwarf today - but 10 billion years ago it didn't even exist, 10 billion years in the future it will be a white dwarf (have spent some time as a red giant along the way). Take a look at this chronology of the solar system to see the past and future of the sun so far as we understand stellar evolution today. (The second item in the table even refers to the local conditions I talk about above - conditions that vary with the location of the protostar in the galaxy.)
Anyway, a person with one of these lasers could clean house. The case is clear glass all the way around, so I assume the laser would shine right through it.
Assuming you could aim with sufficient precision such that your (very small) laser intersects the (very small) spot you've already hit on the (very small) string. (The laser demonstrated is nowhere near powerful enough to cut the string with a single hit.) This is also assuming the glass doesn't diffuse the beam and/or absorb energy from the beam.
If some backyard engineer created this...what do you think the gargantuan budget of the U.S. military has created?
Probably not much better. With the rise of the 'high tech' consumer market since the 1960's, the gap between what's available at Wal-Mart or on the 'net from specialty suppliers and what the DoD has available to it has narrowed considerably. In many cases, it's *reversed* since the DoD has an interest in conserving robust working systems (like the side arms this would replace) while the consumer market is driven by the almost sexual urge to upgrade-upgrade-upgrade.
Keeping in mind that what the scientists are calling 'spines' in the article would be called 'bumps' by any normal people, and keeping in mind the relative lack of sensory nerves within the vagina - why would the female have any reason to choose the spineless mutant over the spined non-mutant? What would cause the proto-human female to make that choice while the proto-chimpanzee (and many other proto-species) made the opposite choice? (Since the genes are linked, you could phrase the question above using 'sensory whiskers' too.)
Occam's often misused razor only work when there is a clear choice of alternatives *and* there is a clear and reasonable 'simplest explanation' to choose over the others. This isn't the case here.
If I had to guess, I find it more likely the change came via sensory whiskers. Once we hunting and eating with our face, and started doing so with our hands, it seems to me that sensory whiskers start to become redundant to senses like sight and smell which operate at a longer range. This could also help explain why some species (the cats for example) have prominent sensory whiskers and why they've become vestigial in the apes.
you've brought nothing but a bunch of legalistic and off topic issues, you haven't refuted or even touched what i am saying
No, I went right to heart of the issues you raised - and refuted them based on scientific evidence. What you've done is simply repeated what you said before without addressing the scientific facts.
the simple truth is, whenever a star/ planetary system forms, you are talking about a certain amount of mass in the region that serves as a starting point. after some time, you have a central gravitational focus, with various objects in orbit. whether or not one or two or more of those objects ignite, is simply a function of mass. and therefore, it is entirely reasonable and plausible to hypothesize that there exists a whole class of systems out there that, simply because nothing ignited, we aren't aware of them.
Since I never said such objects don't exist, I fail to see your point.
then it is equally valid to say that there may be vastly more of such brown and dark systems than systems we can see, simply as a function of random chance
No, it is not valid to make such a statement - because the distribution of proto-stellar mass and the distribution of events and forces that influence stellar formation are neither random nor Gaussian. That's why I brought in galaxies, to illustrate that point - even though they are on a different scale, that does not mean they lack influence. Continental drift operates on a hell of a different scale than I do - but both the longer term effects (raising where I live, the Pacific Northwest, above the ocean) and the shorter term effects (volcanoes and earthquakes) have a great deal of influence on me.
So it goes with galaxies - by effecting the distribution of proto-stellar and stellar matter (both on the large scale by clumping it into galaxies and on a smaller scale considering the difference between the rim and the core) they effect the evolution of stellar systems within them. The effects of that (different types of stars forming at different places in different time resulting in nova and supernova ejecting mass from stars into space in varying places at varying times) are analogous to volcanoes and earthquakes and also effect stellar and planetary system evolution.
There's a time dimension as well. The distribution of types of matter varies with the age of the universe and the age of the galaxies. In the beginning, there was nothing but hydrogen. Over time, stars fused that hydrogen into heavier elements (stopping at iron) and energetic events (nova and supernova) created heavier elements and distributed them into space. The presence and concentration of these elements determine not only stellar evolution *but also* planetary system evolution. Since the distribution of those elements is non Gaussian, the types of stars and planetary systems formed from those elements cannot be either.
In short, the evidence available indicates there is no reason to assume the distribution of stellar types is both non-random and non-Gaussian - every bit of available evidence points to the contrary conclusion.
The rule isn't based on the cell phone causing the spark. The rule is based on people who use cell phones tend to get back into the car, sliding themselves across the seat and charging themselves with static electricity as they do so. That *can* (and has) lead to fires.
Most electronic designers are competent enough to put a choke at their power line and a bandpass filter at their cabling. It's not "easy" but it's done in just about any military grade electronics. I guess Boeing engineers didn't think it was necessary.
Doing so for every wire at every point where the wire enters/leaves a shielded enclosure is heavy and expensive. It's little wonder Boeing engineers wouldn't think it necessary. Doubly so since the maintenance on such enclosures is somewhat more expensive than on ordinary boxen. You have to take considerable care when opening/closing them to avoid damaging the gaskets, and you have to take extra care when installing them in an aircraft to ensure a proper ground.
What's shown on the video in TFA is (relatively) low energy activity - I.E. popping a balloon, piercing thin foamed plastic, minor charring on a bit of wood. High energy activity like piercing a razor blade is noticeable by it's absence.
As a hack, it's way cool. As a weapon, it appears to be pretty useless. (More powerful units could no doubt be built.)
i mean, star creation should assume a gaussian distribution in terms of star size, right?
No, we shouldn't assume star creation has a Gaussian distribution - the universe is neither symmetrical nor uniform. Not even at smaller scales - look at the different types/forms of galaxies for example. The gravitational effects and thus the distribution of proto-stellar matter in a spiral galaxy is going to be different than than the effects and distribution in a barred spiral galaxy. (Let alone the multiple other types.) Even within a single galaxy conditions are going to vary. Considering just an ordinary spiral, you'll find different conditions within the core, the arms, the edges of the arms, and out on the rim.
Furthermore, the conditions vary over time as stars of varying ages go nova/supernova. Then you have to consider that not only is the galaxy itself moving and rotating, the stars within the galaxy are moving...
I rather suspect that the distribution of stellar types, rather than being even roughly Gaussian, is going to be determined by the Butterfly Effect.
well look at the wide base of that gaussian curve, below the minimum size needed for ignition
If it didn't ignite, it's not a star - then technically it doesn't even belong on the chart of star sizes.
I can't enjoy recorded music, because it's simply a cold reproduction from a creepy, unsympathetic machine.
Which is irrelevant - because a robot touch isn't a reproduction of a human touch, it's a simulation of a human touch - which is something else entirely.
Books are the same; who could expect empathy or morality from ink on a page?
Nobody sane would expect empathy or morality from ink on a page, they're inanimate objects. As with the 'reproduction v. simulation' issue above, you're not responding to the inanimate object - you're responding the meanings embedded in them by.... (drum roll) human beings.
Did you read the part of my reply where I mentioned how all of the folks who worked on the last Moon landings were retired or close to retiring? We don't have the talent in place to perform anything other than low Earth orbit manned missions.
Yes, I did read that. And that they're retiring is pretty much irrelevant - none of them have designed a new spacecraft since the early 70's (at best, assuming they were involved with Shuttle). None of them have run a lunar mission since the early 70's either. None of them have sat at a drafting board or on a console in roughly the same time - they've virtually all been promoted into management. (The Apollo era managers being long gone.) I can see the console I used to sit (for the Navy) back in the 80's on TV now and again, and with a little effort I can remember what most of the actuators and indicators do... But I wouldn't trust myself to sit the hot seat without months of retraining (if the Navy even used that system anymore, but it's been gone for years), and I once was one of the best. Like mine, their skills are rusty, obsolete, and virtually irrelevant.
As to not having the skills to go beyond LEO... That's pretty much a groundless assumption.
A set of Moon landings would be practice runs for bigger projects. We should definitely have plans (and funding) in place before starting out (yet, make those plans flexible enough to adapt to what we learn from new Moon landings).
Which, again, loops us more or less right back to where we started - that's been tried before and it didn't work. The funding got cut and plans got canceled. Why? Because going to the Moon is extraordinarily expensive and really served no end. This time around, we don't even have "we must beat them pesky Commies!" as a rationale for spending the money.
Don't get me wrong, I want go back as badly as you do - but I don't allow myself to be blind to reality.
Indeed - and after that amazing initial surge in sales, his books will be like any other book - sales will drop dramatically. Selling $100k worth in the first month does not mean you'll sell $100k worth the rest of the year.
First, it's really great for things like flour or other loose/granular things where the volume varies wildly, and you want a consistent result.
The problem is, except for flour, the weight/volume doesn't vary wildly for virtually all loose/granular things. (Not unless you're particularly inept at scoop-and-sweep.) For those few things other than flour (like brown sugar for example) the weight/volume not only doesn't vary wildly, it doesn't really make that big a difference for virtually all recipies they're used in.
Cakes and breads dramatically improve with a scale.
And their primary ingredient is flour - pretty much the only ingredient used in bulk whose weight/volume varies wildly and whose precise volume/weight matters greatly. If you're making beef stew whether you use 900 grams of carrots or 910 grams is virtually irrelevant. If you're making spaghetti sauce the difference between.5 and.7 grams (or between 1 level teaspoon and 1 heaping teaspoon) is virtually unnoticaeble.
Experienced cooks cook by their senses anyway, all 'precise' measurements do is give inexperienced or unskilled cooks a false sense of confidence.
For general cooking, measurements don't need to be so exact you have to measure it to the gram.
For some ingredients, like flour, the density can vary significantly. If you're measuring using a normal spoon the heaping varies a lot too.
And when measuring small amounts, like would typically be measured with a spoon, that difference in density isn't enough to make a significant difference in the final product.
I don't really know what difference it makes, I don't bake very often (once a month, maybe) and my earliest memory of "helping mummy" to cook was weighing the ingredients.
In baking, it makes a huge difference - if you don't know what you're doing. Typically an experienced baker adds almost all (but not all) flour by the specified measurement (weight or volume) and then adds as needed to reached the desired quality.
But it just goes to show that you don't need fancy new-fangled modern technology in order to ruin your career with a mis-addressed mail.
Yep. I saw a guys naval career nearly end over a similar mistake - when we were doing some testing on sea trials a contractor needed to see a certain (unclassified) document, instead he was given the Secret version which he accidentally put in his brief case and took home... Fortunately the document was recovered, so the guy who made the mistake of handing over the wrong document was only busted in rank rather than tossed in the brig and then tossed out of the Navy.
The guy who ended up in the brig and then out on the street was the guy who tossed a Top Secret custody-controlled document in the trash, and put a plain old unclassified routine instruction back into the folder and back into the safe. (The mistake wasn't discovered for two days, until someone needed that Top Secret document from the safe...) You don't need new-fangled modern technology to ruin your career by 'deleting' the wrong thing.
Then there was the friend of mine who lost both copies of his thesis (the typed original and the carbon) because somebody stole his car with the briefcase containing both copies in the back seat... Stupidity in handling important data/documents goes back a long ways.
Even if you define a library as a culture and information repository, this library fails that test - because it's an internet access point, not a repository. A repository holds and conserves physical objects or digital data, this library does not.
They seriously think an 80% success rate is good enough to be used in court? I'm betting the real reason is so they can go to a judge with their pseudo-evidence to get a warrant for more invasive spying.
How is this modded insightful? This is how the justice system works - when the police can show reasonable probable cause, a judge issues a search warrant. Nor is it pseudo evidence - no more than partial fingerprint matches, noting that you're a left handed red head who matches the description of the left handed suspect and drives the same model car, etc... etc...
It's only pseudo to someone who doesn't believe in mathematics and probably holds other non-scientific beliefs.
So what you'd be writing is a fairly simple minded encryption program... The output of which would likely be fairly recognizable and very likely would still contain the 'fingerprints' of the original writing. I.E. with sufficient text, they'd still be able to tell the difference between a message written by you, and a message written by me - but with the additional disadvantage of not having a 'reverse' function and thus making the text difficult to read by the intended recipient.
So I suspect it's much less easy than you think to write a simple Perl script that both a) renders your input unrecognizable even under mathematical analysis, and b) retains enough of the sense of the original and sufficient resemblance to common English that the recipient could unambiguously understand the contents.
It's also a fairly simple and trivial message. I suspect that a longer passage, more like normal text, would not survive too well. Translation is fairly complex, and even though Google Translate does a fairly good (albeit mechanical) job... I find that it often misses the nuances and suffers greatly if you use a vocabulary much above the grade school level.
Case in point, the text above run through the process above:
There is also a very simple message and trivial. I suspect that a longer passage, more like a text could not survive well. The translation is very complex, and although Google Translate has a pretty good job (albeit mechanical)... I think that often missed the nuances, and suffer greatly if you use a vocabulary far above the primary school.
It would be interesting to run that exercise with a non trivial message and then give the results to a someone who hasn't seen the original and see if they can still make sense of it. (I'm guessing not, translation has a lot of subtleties even when using a standard vocabulary.)
I want to watch TV and see a live broadcast of a man stepping out of a lunar lander and walking on the Moon. We could do it 30 years ago, why can't we do it now?
We can do it now - we just don't see any particular reason because of imbalance between the enormous costs and the lack of returns.
Whatever it takes to get men walking on the Moon again and get people excited about Lunar travel again!
Other than to provide you entertainment - why?
Then, once we're going to the Moon on a semi-regular basis, we can discuss a more permanent settlement.
In other words - stunts and spectaculars first, everything else second. That was tried the first time around, didn't work out too well though.
Slashdot Mirror
Each and every one of my facts bears on your hypothesis as to the distribution of stellar types. Every scientific, pseudo scientific, mathematical, and pseudo mathematical claim you have made has been rebutted with facts.
So what then *is* the point?
Prior to calling you a troll, I have stayed narrowly within the scope of the topic - which is your hypothesis of the likely distribution of stellar types. Whether you choose to believe it or not - these things *are* connected, and I've abundantly, politely, and repeatedly demonstrated the connection. You claim to believe be, but you act as if you don't.
Actually something like that very question has been asked...
Back when we first started to get a handle on galactic evolution, somebody noticed that the amount of visible (luminous, that is visible to telescopes, radio telescopes, etc..) matter in galaxies was not enough to account to the visible effects of gravity on galaxies. One of the first hypotheses they though of was that there must be a lot of invisible (non luminous) matter floating around - then somebody calculated that the amount of invisible (non luminous) matter required would in fact *be* visible, because it would obscure the stars.
This kicked off the search for dark matter.
So while there may be such bodies, the lack of observed gravitational effects, that they've never been observed to occult any stars under observation, and that none appear visible by the reflected light of out own Sun, gives an upper bound to how many there are likely to be. Further studies of the Oort cloud and the Scattered disk could refine that estimate, because if they exist they'll perturb the objects in those belts as they pass by.
Typical troll response - confronted with facts, you run screaming for the hills. I've addressed your simple point again and again, but you lack the wit to comprehend it.
I thought it made it quite clear why I keep talking about galaxies - because they effect local conditions. Local conditions effect what kinds of stars are born and when they are born. What kinds of stars are born and when they are born (and thus how and when they die) affect subsequent populations of stars - and thus the planetary systems that form alongside those subsequent stars.
Are they increasing in number? Where's your evidence?
Before you can extrapolate the existence of the hand side of the curve, first you must demonstrate the existence of the right side you're extrapolating from.
On top of that you must account for the fact that a star's size varies over time. The stars we see *now* (in type and location) are not the stars we would see if we traveled back 10 billion years, nor are they the stars we'd see if we traveled forward 10 billion years. In the same way, you can't extrapolate the relative position and population of LA and Seattle a million years ago and a million years hence from their current positions and population - you need much deeper knowledge to do that.
For an example of that deeper knowledge, and why your method of taking a census of the stars visible today won't work - consider our own Sun. Our own Sun is a yellow dwarf today - but 10 billion years ago it didn't even exist, 10 billion years in the future it will be a white dwarf (have spent some time as a red giant along the way). Take a look at this chronology of the solar system to see the past and future of the sun so far as we understand stellar evolution today. (The second item in the table even refers to the local conditions I talk about above - conditions that vary with the location of the protostar in the galaxy.)
Assuming you could aim with sufficient precision such that your (very small) laser intersects the (very small) spot you've already hit on the (very small) string. (The laser demonstrated is nowhere near powerful enough to cut the string with a single hit.) This is also assuming the glass doesn't diffuse the beam and/or absorb energy from the beam.
Probably not much better. With the rise of the 'high tech' consumer market since the 1960's, the gap between what's available at Wal-Mart or on the 'net from specialty suppliers and what the DoD has available to it has narrowed considerably. In many cases, it's *reversed* since the DoD has an interest in conserving robust working systems (like the side arms this would replace) while the consumer market is driven by the almost sexual urge to upgrade-upgrade-upgrade.
Keeping in mind that what the scientists are calling 'spines' in the article would be called 'bumps' by any normal people, and keeping in mind the relative lack of sensory nerves within the vagina - why would the female have any reason to choose the spineless mutant over the spined non-mutant? What would cause the proto-human female to make that choice while the proto-chimpanzee (and many other proto-species) made the opposite choice? (Since the genes are linked, you could phrase the question above using 'sensory whiskers' too.)
Occam's often misused razor only work when there is a clear choice of alternatives *and* there is a clear and reasonable 'simplest explanation' to choose over the others. This isn't the case here.
If I had to guess, I find it more likely the change came via sensory whiskers. Once we hunting and eating with our face, and started doing so with our hands, it seems to me that sensory whiskers start to become redundant to senses like sight and smell which operate at a longer range. This could also help explain why some species (the cats for example) have prominent sensory whiskers and why they've become vestigial in the apes.
No, I went right to heart of the issues you raised - and refuted them based on scientific evidence. What you've done is simply repeated what you said before without addressing the scientific facts.
Since I never said such objects don't exist, I fail to see your point.
No, it is not valid to make such a statement - because the distribution of proto-stellar mass and the distribution of events and forces that influence stellar formation are neither random nor Gaussian. That's why I brought in galaxies, to illustrate that point - even though they are on a different scale, that does not mean they lack influence. Continental drift operates on a hell of a different scale than I do - but both the longer term effects (raising where I live, the Pacific Northwest, above the ocean) and the shorter term effects (volcanoes and earthquakes) have a great deal of influence on me.
So it goes with galaxies - by effecting the distribution of proto-stellar and stellar matter (both on the large scale by clumping it into galaxies and on a smaller scale considering the difference between the rim and the core) they effect the evolution of stellar systems within them. The effects of that (different types of stars forming at different places in different time resulting in nova and supernova ejecting mass from stars into space in varying places at varying times) are analogous to volcanoes and earthquakes and also effect stellar and planetary system evolution.
There's a time dimension as well. The distribution of types of matter varies with the age of the universe and the age of the galaxies. In the beginning, there was nothing but hydrogen. Over time, stars fused that hydrogen into heavier elements (stopping at iron) and energetic events (nova and supernova) created heavier elements and distributed them into space. The presence and concentration of these elements determine not only stellar evolution *but also* planetary system evolution. Since the distribution of those elements is non Gaussian, the types of stars and planetary systems formed from those elements cannot be either.
In short, the evidence available indicates there is no reason to assume the distribution of stellar types is both non-random and non-Gaussian - every bit of available evidence points to the contrary conclusion.
The rule isn't based on the cell phone causing the spark. The rule is based on people who use cell phones tend to get back into the car, sliding themselves across the seat and charging themselves with static electricity as they do so. That *can* (and has) lead to fires.
Doing so for every wire at every point where the wire enters/leaves a shielded enclosure is heavy and expensive. It's little wonder Boeing engineers wouldn't think it necessary. Doubly so since the maintenance on such enclosures is somewhat more expensive than on ordinary boxen. You have to take considerable care when opening/closing them to avoid damaging the gaskets, and you have to take extra care when installing them in an aircraft to ensure a proper ground.
What's shown on the video in TFA is (relatively) low energy activity - I.E. popping a balloon, piercing thin foamed plastic, minor charring on a bit of wood. High energy activity like piercing a razor blade is noticeable by it's absence.
As a hack, it's way cool. As a weapon, it appears to be pretty useless. (More powerful units could no doubt be built.)
No, we shouldn't assume star creation has a Gaussian distribution - the universe is neither symmetrical nor uniform. Not even at smaller scales - look at the different types/forms of galaxies for example. The gravitational effects and thus the distribution of proto-stellar matter in a spiral galaxy is going to be different than than the effects and distribution in a barred spiral galaxy. (Let alone the multiple other types.) Even within a single galaxy conditions are going to vary. Considering just an ordinary spiral, you'll find different conditions within the core, the arms, the edges of the arms, and out on the rim.
Furthermore, the conditions vary over time as stars of varying ages go nova/supernova. Then you have to consider that not only is the galaxy itself moving and rotating, the stars within the galaxy are moving...
I rather suspect that the distribution of stellar types, rather than being even roughly Gaussian, is going to be determined by the Butterfly Effect.
If it didn't ignite, it's not a star - then technically it doesn't even belong on the chart of star sizes.
Which is irrelevant - because a robot touch isn't a reproduction of a human touch, it's a simulation of a human touch - which is something else entirely.
Nobody sane would expect empathy or morality from ink on a page, they're inanimate objects. As with the 'reproduction v. simulation' issue above, you're not responding to the inanimate object - you're responding the meanings embedded in them by.... (drum roll) human beings.
Yes, I did read that. And that they're retiring is pretty much irrelevant - none of them have designed a new spacecraft since the early 70's (at best, assuming they were involved with Shuttle). None of them have run a lunar mission since the early 70's either. None of them have sat at a drafting board or on a console in roughly the same time - they've virtually all been promoted into management. (The Apollo era managers being long gone.) I can see the console I used to sit (for the Navy) back in the 80's on TV now and again, and with a little effort I can remember what most of the actuators and indicators do... But I wouldn't trust myself to sit the hot seat without months of retraining (if the Navy even used that system anymore, but it's been gone for years), and I once was one of the best. Like mine, their skills are rusty, obsolete, and virtually irrelevant.
As to not having the skills to go beyond LEO... That's pretty much a groundless assumption.
Which, again, loops us more or less right back to where we started - that's been tried before and it didn't work. The funding got cut and plans got canceled. Why? Because going to the Moon is extraordinarily expensive and really served no end. This time around, we don't even have "we must beat them pesky Commies!" as a rationale for spending the money.
Don't get me wrong, I want go back as badly as you do - but I don't allow myself to be blind to reality.
So what would you call it? You haven't provided any reasoning that it would be anything else.
They were planned to - but it didn't work out that way. What makes you think doing the same thing a second time will work out any differently?
Precisely which part of "stunts and spectaculars were tried, and didn't work" are you having such a difficult time comprehending?
Indeed - and after that amazing initial surge in sales, his books will be like any other book - sales will drop dramatically. Selling $100k worth in the first month does not mean you'll sell $100k worth the rest of the year.
The problem is, except for flour, the weight/volume doesn't vary wildly for virtually all loose/granular things. (Not unless you're particularly inept at scoop-and-sweep.) For those few things other than flour (like brown sugar for example) the weight/volume not only doesn't vary wildly, it doesn't really make that big a difference for virtually all recipies they're used in.
And their primary ingredient is flour - pretty much the only ingredient used in bulk whose weight/volume varies wildly and whose precise volume/weight matters greatly. If you're making beef stew whether you use 900 grams of carrots or 910 grams is virtually irrelevant. If you're making spaghetti sauce the difference between .5 and .7 grams (or between 1 level teaspoon and 1 heaping teaspoon) is virtually unnoticaeble.
Experienced cooks cook by their senses anyway, all 'precise' measurements do is give inexperienced or unskilled cooks a false sense of confidence.
And when measuring small amounts, like would typically be measured with a spoon, that difference in density isn't enough to make a significant difference in the final product.
In baking, it makes a huge difference - if you don't know what you're doing. Typically an experienced baker adds almost all (but not all) flour by the specified measurement (weight or volume) and then adds as needed to reached the desired quality.
Yep. I saw a guys naval career nearly end over a similar mistake - when we were doing some testing on sea trials a contractor needed to see a certain (unclassified) document, instead he was given the Secret version which he accidentally put in his brief case and took home... Fortunately the document was recovered, so the guy who made the mistake of handing over the wrong document was only busted in rank rather than tossed in the brig and then tossed out of the Navy.
The guy who ended up in the brig and then out on the street was the guy who tossed a Top Secret custody-controlled document in the trash, and put a plain old unclassified routine instruction back into the folder and back into the safe. (The mistake wasn't discovered for two days, until someone needed that Top Secret document from the safe...) You don't need new-fangled modern technology to ruin your career by 'deleting' the wrong thing.
Then there was the friend of mine who lost both copies of his thesis (the typed original and the carbon) because somebody stole his car with the briefcase containing both copies in the back seat... Stupidity in handling important data/documents goes back a long ways.
Even if you define a library as a culture and information repository, this library fails that test - because it's an internet access point, not a repository. A repository holds and conserves physical objects or digital data, this library does not.
How is this modded insightful? This is how the justice system works - when the police can show reasonable probable cause, a judge issues a search warrant. Nor is it pseudo evidence - no more than partial fingerprint matches, noting that you're a left handed red head who matches the description of the left handed suspect and drives the same model car, etc... etc...
It's only pseudo to someone who doesn't believe in mathematics and probably holds other non-scientific beliefs.
So what you'd be writing is a fairly simple minded encryption program... The output of which would likely be fairly recognizable and very likely would still contain the 'fingerprints' of the original writing. I.E. with sufficient text, they'd still be able to tell the difference between a message written by you, and a message written by me - but with the additional disadvantage of not having a 'reverse' function and thus making the text difficult to read by the intended recipient.
So I suspect it's much less easy than you think to write a simple Perl script that both a) renders your input unrecognizable even under mathematical analysis, and b) retains enough of the sense of the original and sufficient resemblance to common English that the recipient could unambiguously understand the contents.
It's also a fairly simple and trivial message. I suspect that a longer passage, more like normal text, would not survive too well. Translation is fairly complex, and even though Google Translate does a fairly good (albeit mechanical) job... I find that it often misses the nuances and suffers greatly if you use a vocabulary much above the grade school level.
... I think that often missed the nuances, and suffer greatly if you use a vocabulary far above the primary school.
Case in point, the text above run through the process above:
There is also a very simple message and trivial. I suspect that a longer passage, more like a text could not survive well. The translation is very complex, and although Google Translate has a pretty good job (albeit mechanical)
It would be interesting to run that exercise with a non trivial message and then give the results to a someone who hasn't seen the original and see if they can still make sense of it. (I'm guessing not, translation has a lot of subtleties even when using a standard vocabulary.)
We can do it now - we just don't see any particular reason because of imbalance between the enormous costs and the lack of returns.
Other than to provide you entertainment - why?
In other words - stunts and spectaculars first, everything else second. That was tried the first time around, didn't work out too well though.